How The Party At Fault Gets Determined In A Personal Injury Case?
The legal system has established a special system, one by which a lawyer can work towards determining who should be named “at-fault” for a given client’s injuries. That system comes into play when the victim of an accident has hired an attorney.
If the plaintiff is looking at the role played by an Accident Lawyer in Surrey, they need to know that the client’s lawyer investigates the client’s case. And following that investigation, the lawyer makes a liability determination.
The role of the insurance company:
• The insurance company conducts a separate investigation.
• The company uses the findings from its own investigation to make a second liability determination.
What happens if the lawyer’s determination does not agree with the one put forward by the insurance company?
The difference between the lawyer’s and the insurance company’s determination must be resolved in a courtroom. The judge and jury look for evidence of negligence by one of the party’s involved in the accident. If the two parties agree, the dispute can be settled by mediation, rather than through the filing of a lawsuit.
Understand, too, that both parties could come to an agreement before the jury has announced a verdict. At that point, the two disputing parties could not reverse their decision. Only an appeal, made following a courtroom decision can be used to alter a ruling that has was based upon a jury’s decision.
Elements normally used to support an allegation of negligence; proof of negligence is viewed as support for an “at-fault” determination.
• The defendant had a duty to care for the plaintiff.
• The defendant breached that duty; the plaintiff did not receive the expected care.
• The defendant’s action or lack of action caused the plaintiff to undergo undue harm.
• The harm caused by the defendant forced the plaintiff to deal with unexpected damages.
There are times when a plaintiff does not have to show in court the existence of all 4 of the elements listed above. It is when the defendant’s actions were intentional and that fact has been proven. The defendant violated some statute in the law, when committing the act that harmed the plaintiff. The plaintiff had been put in a qualifying situation. Maybe the plaintiff had been confronted by the defendant and had responded in a violent manner. That might be the case, if the plaintiff was old, and unable to defend his or her rights.
Someone that has been put in such a situation would naturally consider using a weapon. Yet it could be that the target of that weapon had not really made a threat. I that case, the target/defendant might respond in a careless and neglectful manner, thus harming the plaintiff.
The above paragraph describes a situation could pose a challenge to someone that must determine who should be held “at-fault” for a given injury. The evidence would fail to show that the defendant had acted intentionally, or had broken the law.