The term strict liability applies to a particular type of personal injury case. What does that term mean? There are many implications of making a strict liability in a personal injury claim, such as:
• The person that caused the claimant’s injury should be held liable, regardless of who has been blamed for causing the associated accident.
• The responsible party acted in a way that was inherently dangerous and unreasonable. For instance, failure to arrange for safety measures, when transporting a dangerous substance would be considered unreasonable.
• The responsible party had a duty to control the toxic or dangerous substance. That duty has made the same person liable for the claimant’s injuries, even if he or she did not cause the injury-associated accident.
For instance, suppose that a trucking company did not use the proper precautions, when transporting a load of firecrackers. As the truck driver followed the rules of the road, he got hit by a distracted driver. The impact caused the items in the load to explode, injuring some of the drivers in the nearby vehicles. The trucking company would be held liable for the injuries, even though the driver had been following the rules of the road. This example does a good job of suggesting the correct answer to the following question.
What must be the level of harm done to the victim?
The victim must suffer a measurable level of harm. If the victim reported only feeling an increased level of pain, that would not be measurable. The victim’s awarded compensation should provide for the victim’s ability to return to his or her former position.
The victim might need to stay home from work for a number of days. That would result in a decrease in earnings. A wage replacement should allow for a restoration of the lost earnings. That forced time away from work would qualify as harm done to the victim. With strict liability, financial damage gets assigned the same weight as physical damage. Yet, a victim of financial damage cannot claim money for pain and suffering.
If a plaintiff’s pain and suffering could not be considered during the negotiations, the Personal Injury Lawyer in Kitchener might seek to introduce information on lost access to sources of income. For instance, it might be shown that the plaintiff normally received a bonus during the time of the year when he or she was home recovering. The loss of a bonus could qualify as loss of income.
By the same token, it could be that the plaintiff did not get money added to his or her account, because he or she was home recovering from accident-associated injuries. That could be used as another example of lost earnings, which had exemplified the harm caused by accident-related injuries.