Brain-related injuries often result in long-term health issues or disabilities, which lead to massive medical costs. These costs can place a heavy financial burden on New Jersey brain injury victims and their families.
Although no amount of money can reverse the effects of a traumatic brain injury, it is important that victims and their loved ones learn about the possibility of recovering damages for the costs they have incurred to prevent unnecessarily adding to their economic burden. These cases can be complex, so it’s beneficial for victims to have a full understanding of their rights.
The trial for a lawsuit brought by a young man against Bergen County recently began. The case stems from an accident that the man was involved in six years ago. As he was driving home, his car skidded into the opposite lane and hit an oncoming car. The accident left him in a coma for three weeks and he was treated for brain swelling, in addition to back and neck fractures and a laceration on his liver.
The man suffered a traumatic brain injury and is now bound to a wheelchair as he has lost the ability to speak and use his limbs. He currently resides in a long-term care facility with medical bills of $2.1 million to date that will continue to accumulate in the future. The man claims that his car skidded due a large pool of water on the road that he says was created by drainage problems on the county road, which is why he is suing the county for damages.
In cases where an individual desires to bring a civil claim against a state or municipal government body, they must comply with the state’s government immunity laws. Many states limit the government’s immunity in cases where a special defect is present, which is a defect that creates an unusual and unexpected danger. The government may be liable if they knew or should have known of the defect and failed to act.
In the aforementioned case, the victim’s attorneys must prove that such a defect existed and was the proximate cause of his accident. They must also prove that Bergen County had been notified of the road’s condition and their failure to act was “palpably unreasonable.”