This Blog was brought to you by the J.A. Davis & Associates, LLP – Personal Injury Lawyer McAllen principal office in San Antonio
At our Law Office, we want to provide you with as many resources and as much information as possible to help you make educated decisions when you have been injured in an accident.
Fact Sheet Library – The National Safety Council (NSC) provides information on how to live a safer life.
Tort Law: An Overview
Negligence has been defined as the doing of something that a reasonably prudent person wouldn’t do or the failure to do something that a reasonable person would do under similar circumstances. Negligence can
be either affirmative conduct or the failure to perform an affirmative act. For example, in a car crash, or any type of auto accident, whether it be a truck accident, bus accident, motorcycle accident, or even a pedestrian accident, this could mean a a broad range of behavior, from a lapse of attention causing a driver to rear end another vehicle, cross a center line, fail to yield the right of way or run a stop sign, resulting in a collision, to affirmative conduct constituting unsafe driving, such as speeding, or drunk driving. More about Car Accident Lawyer McAllen here
The hypothetical “reasonable person” standard is used as the basis to judge human behavior. A reasonable person utilizes care under circumstances in which it is foreseeable that the failure to do so would pose an unreasonable risk of injury to others. The doctrine of contributory negligence is an affirmative defense to an auto accident lawsuit and is typically raised by the defense attorney in an effort to defeat the accident lawsuit. A plaintiff’s own negligence, which is a proximate cause of a car accident, may defeat the plaintiff’s claim, even if the defendant was also negligent. Under the common law doctrine of contributory negligence, there is no comparison of the fault of a plaintiff and the fault of a defendant. Even when a defendant’s negligence appears to be much more serious, the plaintiff’s own negligence in the car accident may defeat his claim. This common law rule has been criticized as being unduly harsh by many and has given rise to various methods to escape from the effects of the doctrine, including the “last clear chance” doctrine
and the doctrine of comparative negligence in some states. Under the doctrine of comparative negligence, the fact finder in an auto accident case, rather than deny the plaintiff in a car accident case any recovery, is permitted to compare the negligence of the plaintiff versus that of the defendant and adjust its damage award according to the degree of negligence of the plaintiff. For instance, if a plaintiff and defendant are both found to have been driving negligently and that negligent driving caused an accident. Between the plaintiff and defendant, a jury may find that the plaintiff’s negligence contributed 30% to the accident, and the defendant’s negligence contributed 70% to the car accident. The jury would then decide the amount of injuries and damages suffered by the plaintiff and would reduce them by 30%, which was the plaintiff’s percentage of contribution.
The doctrine of assumption of risk prohibits negligence claim when it can be shown that the plaintiff voluntarily chose to encounter a known danger and either appreciated or should have appreciated the risks involved with that conduct. It is usually not applicable in auto accident claims because it involves intentional, not negligent, conduct. But, because it is a defense at common law to a negligence complaint, attorneys for defendants may assert it in lawsuits arising out of car accident claims. Under the last clear chance doctrine, a plaintiff who is contributorily negligent may, nevertheless, recover in the auto accident lawsuit if the plaintiff is in a situation of helpless peril, and thereafter, the defendant had an opportunity to avoid injury to the plaintiff and failed to do so. Under these circumstances, the defendant had the “last clear chance. ”
The burden of proof in negligence cases is on the plaintiff. This does not mean that the plaintiff’s lawyer must present absolute proof or that the evidence presented by the lawyer in the lawsuit must be conclusive. It only means that the plaintiff’s lawyer must present sufficient evidence in
the negligence lawsuit so that a reasonable judge or jury might rule in favor of the plaintiff. The burden of proof in a negligence claim can be met by the testimony of the plaintiff. Once the lawyers for the plaintiff have presented their evidence, the burden of proof then shifts to the defendant to present evidence of any affirmative defenses. If the defendant claims that the plaintiff was contributorily negligent, then he has the burden of producing evidence that the plaintiff was contributorily negligent. Just as the plaintiff’s burden of proof on the issue of negligence need not be conclusive, a defendant’s burden of proof of contributory negligence also need not be conclusive. The standard of proof in most auto accident cases is called the “preponderance of the evidence ” standard. It is less strict than the standard in criminal cases of proof beyond a reasonable doubt “. The “preponderance of the evidence” standard has been defined to mean the more persuasive evidence or the evidence that is more likely than not to be true as to what happened in the accident. The car accident and injury must be shown to be the natural and probable result of the negligent conduct. The plaintiff must prove that the defendant’s negligence proximately caused the accident and his injuries. The defendant must prove that the plaintiff’s contributory negligence proximately caused the accident and the injuries suffered by the plaintiff. There may be multiple proximate causes of a car accident. I
In car accident claims the injured party may recover for:
pain and suffering, medical bills, wage loss, and permanent impairment. Also, the spouse of the victim in the car accident lawsuit may be joined to recover for harm to the marital relationship. This is called loss of consortium, and it is ordinarily a joint count in the Complaint by both of the spouses. Loss of consortium generally includes any harmful effect upon the marital relationship caused by the car accident and can be defined as the loss of the spouse’s, companionship, affection, moral support, sexual relations, and assistance in the operation of the home.
The liability part of an auto insurance policy is specifically for defending any claims or paying any judgments against the insured driver in a car accident claim. When a plaintiff is injured in an auto accident due to the negligence of another, the plaintiff may make a claim under the bodily injury liability coverage of the defendant’s auto insurance policy. Liability coverage is set up to be a one-time settlement or payment for all of the plaintiff’s injuries and damages. Uninsured motorist coverage and underinsured motorist coverage may be provided by the victim’s own insurance and it protects the victim of an auto accident against a negligent driver who may not have liability insurance coverage or may have insufficient liability insurance. When there is a car accident involving an uninsured defendant, the plaintiff makes a claim under his own uninsured motorist coverage. If a defendant has liability insurance, but the policy limit is less than the uninsured motorist coverage of the victim under his or her own policy, the Plaintiff may make a claim under his own policy for underinsured motorist benefits. The owner of a vehicle has the primary obligation to provide minimum coverage for the owned vehicle and this obligation may not be avoided through a unilateral contract with a permissive user of the vehicle.
Our Law Firm is dedicated to helping you obtain the compensation that you deserve for your personal injury. Call today to speak with a Lawyer regarding your auto accident claim due to an automobile injury. As accident lawyers, we will fight for you to make sure you are compensated for your auto accident insurance claims.
More Great Car Accident Law Blogs Here:
https://www.summersandwyatt.com/after-an-car-accident/
https://www.chicagopersonal-injurylawyer.info/texas-car-accident-lawyers/
https://www.denvercopersonalinjurylawyer.com/successful-accident-attorneys/
https://www.siringolaw.com/car-accidents-back-injuries/
https://www.griffithlaw.net/personal-injury-law-accident-attorneys/
https://www.connecticutinjuryclaimscenter.com/we-handle-accident-injury-cases/
https://www.bannerbrileywhite.com/car-accident-cases-winning-aint-easy/
https://www.irvingattorney.net/car-accident-filing-an-insurance-claim/
https://www.keithsaylorlaw.net/common-auto-accident-injuries/
https://www.durrettebradshaw.com/injured-in-a-car-accident-call-us/
https://www.bhsmck.com/defective-tire-accidents/
https://www.thaddavidson.com/rollover-vs-other-car-accidents/
https://www.njinjurycenter.com/defective-tire-accident/
https://www.glglaw.net/car-18-wheeler-accidents/
https://www.petergoldsteinlawfirm.com/car-accident-attorneys/
https://www.sambrandlaw.com/you-need-a-car-accident-lawyer-if-you-are-injured/
https://www.dclawpllc.com/car-accidents-are-very-common/
https://www.howardandnemoy.com/do-i-really-need-an-attorney/