Certain circumstances create a challenge to lawyers and insurance companies, when it has come time to decide who should be named at-fault for a given accident.
Showing negligence is essential in any circumstance.
Had the defendant been careless or neglectful? Had the defendant failed to use common sense? A “yes” answer would indicate the performance of a negligent action. A demonstration of negligence by the defendant provides the plaintiff/claimant with grounds for alleging that the other party was at-fault.
Can a plaintiff be compensated, if there has been evidence of shared fault?
In most states, the answer is “yes.” Most states follow a principle that is known as comparative negligence. That means that the size of the compensation must be an inverse comparison of the degree to which each party has contributed to the accident’s occurrence.
In other words, if someone has been found 25% responsible for a given accident, then that same individual should receive only 75% of the anticipated compensation package, as per Personal Injury Lawyer in Kitchener.
The situation is different in the few states that follow the principle of contributory negligence. That states that no one that has helped to cause an accident’s occurrence has the right to seek compensation for any losses.
Would compensation be granted, if a victim were suffering from the effects of a pre-existing condition?
Yes, the defendant is responsible for his or her actions, regardless of the victim’s condition. The judge and jury must study the nature of the harm done to the victim. Would that level of harm have created medical problems for any driver or occupant? If the answer is “yes,” then the defendant needs to compensate the injured individual.
Was the responsible driver carrying out a task at the request of an employer?
If the answer to that question was “yes,” than the employer could be held responsible for compensating the injured party. At least, that would be the case, if the driver/employee had carried out the negligent act during his or her working hours.
The answer to the question asked above would be “no,” if the employee had been in an accident before or after those working hours. In other words, employees that become involved in a collision, while on the way to work, cannot blame their employer. Similarly, those that collide with another vehicle while on a lunch break, or while returning from the workplace cannot blame their employer.
Those rules cover most situations that involve 2 or more vehicles. Other rules apply following a bike-vehicle collision, or a truck-vehicle collision.Some of the mentioned rules do apply to occasions when a motorist has managed to hit a pedestrian. Sometimes, the pedestrian has been partly at-fault for the occurrence of such an incident.