In agreeing to the compensation for the victim of an accident, the lawyers from both sides agree that the promised benefits should return the same victim to his or her original position. In other words, that return should make sure that the victim’s new position could not be perceived as a come-down from the one that had been held previously. By the same token, it should not be one that could be described as a marked improvement over the original.
The fundamental facts of a settlement
Before reaching a settlement, the lawyer for the plaintiff and the defendant get together and negotiate. Both look to see if the damages experienced by the plaintiff resulted from the exposure to harm of an unusual vulnerability. A return to the original position would not be expected to remove that vulnerability.
At the same time, the two lawyers check to see of such damages were the anticipated effects of a pre-existing condition. In other words, did the accident just trigger the occurrence of an inevitable event? If it did, then the compensation would not be expected to make up for the passing of time and the fulfillment of the inevitable.
After studying those facts, the two sides settle on the amount of compensation. All plaintiffs give up one right when settling with a defendant or an insurance company. That right focuses on actions that can no longer be taken. After agreeing to a settlement, the plaintiff can no longer sue the defendant or the insurance company.
Actions that plaintiff expects any hired lawyer to take
The Personal Injury Lawyer in Kitchener should investigate the client’s case and organize the evidence. Lawyers usually like to focus on evidence that showcases the client’s worth, and shows that the offer from the insurance company has failed to acknowledge that same worth.
The lawyer for the plaintiff negotiates with the legal representative for the defendant. A good lawyer refuses to agree to a deficient settlement. If necessary, the plaintiff’s lawyer prepares to pursue the claim in court. In preparation for that experience, a portion of the lawyer’s time must be devoted to learning what tactics the defendant might use in the courtroom. When appropriate, the lawyer shares insights on such tactics with the legal team and their client.
For example, suppose that a woman that relies on the operation of an implanted device were to be rear-ended at a traffic light. During the following month she notes development of a headache. Once that month has ended, she discovers that the device implanted in her head must be replaced. She and her husband hire a lawyer. While checking to see what tactics the defendant might use, the couple’s lawyer learns that the opposing side may hint that the female victim should have been wearing two seat belts. The lawyer then shares that piece of information with his client. Eventually, the two sides agree to settle out-of-court.