While the defendant’s response to the Toledo rear-end accident claim was easy for the victim’s counsel to respond to, this is not always the case for many claims and courtroom proceedings. Without an attorney’s help, victims of rear-end wrecks could find themselves in an unfamiliar situation. That is why retaining the services of an attorney could be one of the most important decisions a victim could make.
An attorney could work on drafting a case and responding to a defense’s requests and motions while you focus on what’s important: recovery.
After exhausting efforts to resolve the issue outside of court, the attorneys filed the lawsuit. To prepare on the client’s behalf pending court proceedings, the team filed a request for production of documents, interrogatories, and request for admissions. Those documents were answered by the opposing counsel.
For the Toledo car wreck, the opposing party responded to the documents that attorneys filed on the victim’s behalf in Toledo by filing an answer to the lawsuit. In their answer, they admitted some facts, they denied some facts, and they threw out in their answers some affirmative defenses that they attempted to use against the victim’s claim.
In this case, the defendant had 28 days to respond. They filed a motion of request to receive an additional 28 days. It was a little less than two months when they filed their answer. There were no counter-claims or cross-claims.
One of the factors crucial in this case was that the defense did a deposition of the client several months after the lawsuit was filed. The client’s counsel prepared the client on how to answer the questions. In this case, the team received good service of process on the defendant and on the trucking company, but the trucking company had since fired the defendant after the case and could no longer locate the defendant. With only one person to offer sworn evidence into the case, it became easier for the victim’s counsel to take the initiative in court.
One of the strategic advantages the team had in this case if it had proceeded to trial was that the defense did not have a defendant that they could bring in front of the jury. Strategically, they would have a police officer who had a young family, who is an Iraq war veteran, who was also a police officer, and who could never work again. They would not have a truck driver defendant at the table, which put them at a substantial disadvantage.
While litigation offers challenges in of itself, and not all of these challenges are easily prepared for. Fortunately, the defendant’s response to the Toledo rear-end accident claim was manageable with the help of seasoned attorneys. The defense was unable to fight off the evidence that the victim’s attorneys had gathered and presented in court. While this may sound easy to do, it is often drastically challenging if you have been injured in a car wreck.
If you feel as though your accident was similar in nature to the victim’s in the Toledo rear-end collision, you need to connect with an attorney who could gather evidence, prepare you for court, and take the necessary steps to produce a more favorable courtroom outcome. Do not wait, talk to an attorney today.
Charles E. Boyk Law Offices, LLC