What happens when a friendly game turns into the need for a Golf Cart Accident Lawyer? A man was driving a golf cart around a turn. Just as he began the turn another golf cart came toward him. The other car was driven by an employee of the golf club. The man swerved to avoid a collision. His golf cart struck a metal guardrail. This pinned his left leg between his golf cart and the guardrail. The injured man sued the golf club to recover damages for sustained injuries. With the help of his Golf Cart Accident Lawyer he alleged that its employee failed to control of his golf cart. He further argued that he injured his left leg. In his answer, the defendant denied everything. The defendant also claimed the man caused his own injuries. During the case, the employee testified that plaintiff drove his golf cart at a “very high rate of speed.” Defendant also claimed that plaintiff made a wide turn around the corner just prior to the accident.
How this Golf Cart Accident Lawyer Approached the Case
Plaintiff moved for a unified trial on the issues of liability and damages, meaning that it argues that the whole case is heard at the same time. They will argue this if medical evidence pertaining to the injuries had an important bearing on what happened int he crash. In support of his motion, plaintiff submitted the affidavits of experts. The expert opined that the plaintiff was not driving greater than one to three miles per hour. The lower court agreed. Defendant appealed.
The Appeal by the Golf Cart Accident Lawyer
Plaintiff fought the appeal. The higher Court explained that a court may order a separate trial of any claim. Accordingly, the court said it should find out whether the injuries affect how the accident happened. A court will also consider if knowing about the injuries creates too much sympathy. The higher Court held that the Golf Cart Accident Lawyer failed to demonstrate that the nature of his injuries had an important bearing on how the accident happened.
The Court further held that the expert’s affidavit submitted in support of his motion was conclusory. This means that it failed to set forth enough reason for the expert opinion. The Court also held that plaintiff failed to show that his expert’s theory could not adequately be proven at the liability trial. They reasoned that given the nature and severity of the injuries alleged by plaintiff, the numerous surgeries allegedly necessitated by those injuries, there would be a substantial danger of confusion and prejudice to defendant if the jury were exposed to the full extent of the plaintiff’s case on the issue of damages while it was considering the issue of liability.
Furthermore, the Court held that plaintiff failed to allege that his expert, who was not a medical doctor, would have to testify at both phases of a bifurcated trial or that a unified trial would otherwise result in increased judicial efficiency. Accordingly, the Second Department reversed the lower court’s decision and denied the plaintiff’s motion for a unified trial on the issues of liability and damages. Golf cart accidents aren’t common, but when they happen, it’s important to contact an attorney as soon as possible.