The person that has become injured in an accident has the right to seek compensation from the responsible party. Still, that same claimant/victim needs to prove that the other party should be held liable for the accident-caused injuries.
Action expected of claimant, according to the law
Provide the insurance adjuster with a reasonable argument, concerning who was at fault. Claimants do not have to provide any sort of legal proof, regarding the liability of the defendant.
Did negligence play a role in the accident under consideration?
Insurance companies and the legal system have the same definition for negligence: Careless and neglectful behavior. A negligent defendant has failed to carry out an expected duty. Plaintiffs that fail to show negligence on the part of the defendant cannot move forward with a charge of liability, no matter how badly the same plaintiffs might have been injured.
What are comparative and contributory negligence?
Those are 2 different principles, each of which relates to evidence that the plaintiff is partly responsible for the accident’s occurrence, or for the severity of the accident-caused injury. In comparative negligence, the amount of the plaintiff’s reward gets reduced in proportion to his or her contribution to the factors that caused the accident.
According to the principle known as contributory negligence, plaintiffs that are partly at fault face a harsher penalty. Their careless and neglectful actions have brought an end to their dreams for receiving a generous reward.
What other factor could force a reduction in the size of the reward for the plaintiff?
The defendant’s defense team would check to see if the plaintiff’s medical history included mention of a past injury or a pre-existing condition. That same team might try to use that fact, in order to lower the size of the package that gets given to the plaintiff.
Injury Lawyer in Kingston for plaintiff should be able to counter that argument, by mentioning a specific legal principle. Every person has the right to avoid unnecessary danger. By the same token, no person should act in a way to puts someone else in danger.
Plaintiffs’ right to avoid unnecessary danger translates as a requirement to take as the proper precautions. If a motorcycle rider without a helmet were to get injured in an accident, that same rider would not have a strong case, due to the helmet’s absence.
A team defending someone accused of injuring a person with a pre-existing condition might suggest that the injured victim should have been using some type of protective device. That victim should have a good attorney. Such an attorney would seek out an expert, someone that could explain what devices were or were not on the market, to be used as the mentioned protection.