No accident victim should assume that he or she has strong grounds or weak grounds for filing a legal action, as per injury lawyer in Kingston.

Dangers invited by victims that have made assumptions

The same victim might not be able to identify all of the factors that caused the accident. By the same token, that particular victim might have overlooked all the factors that accounted for the harm to the driver, or to any of the vehicle’s occupants.

Even victims that might be found guilty of shared blame could be entitled to compensation from others. A victim’s refusal to explore the options available to him or her could increase the chances for the denial of a well-deserved compensation.

Legal requirements on evidence from a driver that has chosen to sue another driver.

The person that was sued for coverage of injuries or for property damage must have exhibited one or more of these 3 behaviors

—Recklessness
—Negligence
—Intentionally dangerous conduct.

That same rule applies to any insurance company that hopes to charge an injured victim with shared blame. That same insurance company must show that the charged victim was, reckless, negligent or intentionally threatening, during the moments before the accident, or before creation of the accident-linked injury.

A good car accident lawyer could challenge the insurance company’s ability to prove that the accident victim had demonstrated one or more of the 3 named behaviors. The likelihood for demands, concerning the presentation of such a proof could come during negotiations for either a first party or a 3rd party claim.

What might trigger the introduction of such demands?

An accident victim’s attorney might make such demands, if someone had been injured by an action that was made by the driver of the client’s vehicle. That could well be the same vehicle that had carried the injured victim. Sometimes, too, the driver and the injured client could be the same person.

Insurance companies welcome the opportunity to come forward with a charge of shared blame, whenever a claimant has failed to hire a personal injury lawyer. Some victims provide them with that opportunity by making an underrepresented claim. Sometimes a victim’s unproven assumptions can become the basis for such a claim.

For instance, the driver of a hit vehicle might think that no one in the same vehicle had been injured. Yet most companies view such an underrepresented claim as a red flag.

In response to what seems to the insurer like a red flag, an insurance company might saddle the driver of the hit vehicle with a charge of shared blame. That is why all accident victims ought to hire an attorney, regardless of the nature of the same victims’ assumptions.