The Challenge of Proving Who Is At Fault

After a collision, the 2 involved parties have become the 2 sides in a dispute. Their actions have triggered a dispute over who should be declared at fault.

The party that feels victimized needs to make a reasonable argument.

The victim must show that the other side/driver was careless and neglectful. Still, proof of that fact may not provide insight on every aspect of the disputed collision.

Was the victim/plaintiff guilty of comparative negligence?

Did the victim’s actions or failure to take action contribute to creation of the collision? Did those actions help to make the victim’s injuries worse? If the answer to either of those questions is “yes,” then the plaintiff/victim has committed an act of comparative negligence.

If one side in a dispute can charge the other side with comparative negligence, then the size of the compensation for the alleged victim needs to be reduced. The extent of that reduction gets determined by the jury, which must work with a formula that has been provided by the judge.

The jury must assign a given percent to the level of negligence committed by the victim. The level of the victim’s comparative negligence and the level of the defendant’s negligence should equal 100. The level assigned to the victim’s action represents the percent of the money that must be deducted from the awarded compensation.

No plaintiff should be put in danger.

No victim should get a lower compensation, if the defendant can show that the victim had a pre-existing condition. That fact does not abolish the victim’s right to seek a just compensation.

Still, the defendant could ask for proof that the victim’s condition had been stabilized. Someone with a stabilized condition should be able to request the full amount of the compensation that is normally awarded the victim of a specific injury.

Suppose though, that the victim’s condition had not become stabilized. Proof of that fact might be found in the victim’s medical record. That record would then serve as evidence that the defendant has a right to question the amount of compensation that has been requested.

In the above example, the issue did not focus on who should be blamed at fault for the collision, but on who should be blamed for the victim’s injury. Personal Injury Lawyer in Kitchener knows that if an accident causes an injury, the victim is supposed to seek immediate medical attention. In the absence of such action, the defendant has a right to demand a lower compensation.

The same thing would hold true if the victim had a pre-existing condition. Victims wanting to be fully compensated for their injuries must prove, usually with medical records, the stabile nature of their condition.