If the person that has suffered a personal injury cannot reach an agreement with the responsible party, then that same victim has the right to sue the same party. Defendants have the right to answer the suing party in either of 2 different ways.
The defendant could deny the existence of grounds for a lawsuit.
One argument that defendants have used, when denying the existence of grounds, relates to the 4 elements of negligence. The complaint filed by the plaintiff’s lawyer should provide sufficient details on each of those 4 elements.
The absence of sufficient details for even a single element could be used as a reason for denying the existence of grounds for suing the defendant. If the court has declared an absence of grounds, then the defendant has the right to answer the filed complaint with a denial.
A second argument that some defendants have used has related to the statute of limitations. If a complaint has been filed after the deadline, as stated in the statute of limitations, then the court has reason to support a denial by the defendant.
A defendant’s answer to a personal injury complaint could take the form of a defense.
One defense that the injury lawyers in Ottawa for a defendant use frequently concerns the need for the plaintiff to demonstrate mitigation of the damages. If the evidence does not show an effort to mitigate the damages, then that fact provides the defendant’s lawyer with a possible defense.
How could a lawyer show the absence of an effort to mitigate damages? The time between the accident’s occurrence and the plaintiff’s first visit with a doctor could suggest a failure to carry out the expected mitigating actions. Smart victims see a doctor as soon as possible, following an accident’s occurrence.
A second possible defense could be based on a plaintiff’s assumption of risk. That sort of defense could be used, if the plaintiff had been injured while at some sort of recreational facility.
The owners of such facilities normally ask customers to sign a form that shows their readiness to accept the known risks. Yet that form could not become the basis for a defense, if the facility were to demonstrate gross negligence. That fact underscores the reason that lawyers often accuse such facilities of having committed an act of gross negligence.
An accusation of shared fault would be another possible defense. In addition, the team defending the allegedly responsible party might offer evidence to suggest that a 3rd party should be held accountable for the damages to the plaintiff. For instance, the victim of an intoxicated driver might seek to blame the person that had been serving all of the alcoholic beverages.