The injury lawyer in Scarborough defending someone that has allegedly caused an accident could select from 2 different defenses. He or she could elect to use a legal or procedural defense. Alternatively, he/she might opt for utilization of a factual defense.
The latter type of defense relies on the presentation of one or more arguments. This article will offer details on those various arguments.
The arguments based on shard fault: Of the 2 available, each state has chosen to adhere to the principle behind one of the 2 arguments
The principle of comparative negligence: That calls for a reduction in the amount of money paid by one of the responsible parties. That reduction should be in proportion to the extent of the same party’s contribution to the factors that caused the accident. In other words, if one party were to contribute 1/4 of the factors, and the other party were to contribute 3/4 of the factors, then the amount paid by the person that caused 1/4 of the factors should be only 25% of the total amount paid to the victim. The other party would need to deliver the remaining 75%.
The principle of contributory negligence: According to that principle, no person that has contributed in any way to an accident’s occurrence should be able to receive any compensation. Only a few states follow that principle. Drivers that are involved in an accident in such a state often count on assistance from a personal injury lawyer, during an effort to fight any charge of shared blame.
A second and separate argument: Failure to mitigate the effects of any injury
A smart victim would seek medical attention as soon as possible, following involvement in a car accident. The time spent with the physician would be noted in the same victim’s medical record. The insurance company would count that mention as proof of the fact that the victim had made an effort to mitigate the effects of any injuries.
Such a failure could exaggerate the consequences for the victim’s actions. That would certainly be the case, if any of the injured victims were minors. Courts usually agree to an extension of the deadline for filing a lawsuit, if the injured party is a minor.
As a result, the young person would have a chance to make some money as soon as he or she turned 18. He or she would have a right to sue the responsible party before the passage of 2 years, following that 18th birthday. That opportunity could prove most useful, if the same minor had suffered slow-to-emerge symptoms, during the weeks and months, perhaps even years that followed the accident. That is why it always pays to seek medical attention.
