Common Defenses That May Apply in Your Car Accident Case

If a car accident has injured you or someone you know, it is essential to understand the common defenses that may apply to your case. If you need to figure out what these defenses are, you should consult an experienced attorney. They can help you find the most favorable option and provide information about the limitations of your claim.

Factual Defenses

In most car accident claims, negligence is the determining factor. Factual defenses are used by defendants to try to minimize their liability.

For example, a pedestrian may claim that a driver’s speed was a proximate cause of the crash. The pedestrian could also argue that the driver’s conduct breached the duty of care. For example, a drunk driver might rear-end a pedestrian. However, the driver might not have changed his behavior when he saw the pedestrian using a crosswalk.

Similarly, a plaintiff might claim that the accident caused her to suffer a specific injury. The plaintiff might have a medical record indicating that her pain began within a particular period before the visit. The car accidents attorney should then evaluate the doctor’s testimony.

In addition to proving that the accident was the main event, a plaintiff must prove that the defendant was liable for the damage. In many cases, the government can limit or bar a lawsuit.

Statute of Limitations

Whether you were the other driver in the collision or were hurt in one, it’s essential to know your statute of limitations. The deadline will determine your ability to pursue your claim and receive financial compensation.

In most states, you have two years to bring a personal injury claim following a collision. However, there are some exceptions. Some public authorities, such as the Long Island Railroad, have shorter statutes of limitations.

One of the most crucial tools you can use to negotiate a settlement is the statute of limitations. It allows you to avoid having your lawsuit dismissed and will enable you to gather as much evidence as possible.

A lot of evidence can deteriorate over time, making it difficult to prove fault or recovery. To prevent this from happening, you must act quickly after an accident. This is why it’s a good idea to consult with a lawyer immediately.

Comparative Fault Jurisdiction

Comparative fault jurisdiction is a legal principle determining the responsibility of parties involved in an accident. It is used to help determine compensation for losses.

Comparative fault models come in two different varieties. These are modified comparative fault and pure comparative fault, respectively. While some states employ a revised model, others use pure comparative fault.

When an injury occurs, the damages are reduced by the degree of fault assigned to the plaintiff. A jury or court decides the percentage of the responsibility of each party in the incident. If the fault of any of the parties exceeds fifty percent, the injured party cannot recover any damages.

Thirteen states recognize pure comparative fault. These states are California, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, New Mexico, New York, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Washington, and Utah. However, only five states recognize pure contributory negligence.

Some states, such as Texas, use the modified comparative fault rule. These states allow the injured party to sue another person for damages even if they are partially at fault for the accident.

Comparative Negligence

Involving a driver is crucial in determining who’s at fault during the accident. This is the basis for the insurance company to compensate the other driver. Generally, the more the other driver is at fault, the less they will be able to recover.

One way of determining the degree of fault in a car accident is by using a comparative negligence law. In this law, a jury or judge will decide who is at fault in a personal injury case. The plaintiff must prove that the other driver is at least partly at fault.

There are two basic comparative negligence laws, pure contributory negligence and modified comparative negligence. Each state has a different version of the law. While most North American U.S. courts use a modified relative negligence model, thirteen states have adopted pure comparative fault.

Unlike the 51% threshold rule, a pure comparative negligence law allows an injured party to collect damages even if they are only partly at fault. The jury will apportion damages to the parties involved. For example, if Person A is 10 percent at fault for the accident, the financial recovery would be reduced by $22,500.