Every personal injury lawyer appreciates the significance of any facts that help to identify the person/organization that has caused a given accident. That is the person/organization that can be held liable for the payment of accident-related damages.
The presentation of views
Each party that was involved in the accident has the right to offer its view, concerning who should be held responsible for the damages. That view ought to seem reasonable; it should offer a logical explanation for the ways in which the other party was careless.
The task of proving who caused an accident demands an explanation for why one specific party acted in a careless and neglectful manner. Did that party have a duty of care towards the injured victim? Did the same party breach that duty of care?
Can more than one person be held responsible for a given incident?
Yes, in most legal jurisdictions the legal system recognizes the concept of comparative negligence. Comparative negligence allows for the fact that one person might cause a given accident, but the victim might act in way that managed to make any sustained injury worse. Sometimes, too, 2 people can carry out two acts of negligence at the same time, within the same general area.
Both of those examples illustrate an instance that can give rise to comparative negligence. When both involved parties have been careless and neglectful, any compensation needs to get shared by the same involved parties. The extent of each party’s negligence determines the percent of the compensation that goes to each person that was involved in the accidental occurrence
No one person should put another person in unnecessary danger.
That is a legal doctrine. How does that doctrine relate to the task of determining who caused a given accident? That doctrine backs-up the rule that no one that has decided to act carelessly gets to choose his or her victim.
Sometimes, if an insurance company learns that a plaintiff/claimant suffered a previous injury or has a pre-existing medical condition, then it might try to claim that the same injury/condition caused the medical problems that developed, following the accident. The legal system has given plaintiffs/claimants the ability to fight such a claim.
Injury Lawyer in Waterloo knows that if a claimant’s medical record shows that he or she had managed to control a pre-existing condition, or had recovered completely from a previous injury, then the defendant cannot escape from the liability charge. Each person has the right to seek fair treatment, even if he or she has a controlled condition, or has recovered from a previous injury. Still, an insurance company might claim that a plaintiff should have taken added precautions. A good attorney should know how to fight such unsubstantiated allegations.