In any personal injury case, the task of identifying the responsible party must be accomplished, because that same liable party has the duty of compensating the injured victim.
Those on each side of the resulting dispute carry out an investigation.
Typically, an attorney for the plaintiff investigates the essential elements of the client’s story. The attorney’s investigation takes place at the same time as the one conducted by the adjuster at the defendant’s insurance company.
In most cases, the plaintiff’s lawyer focuses on finding evidence that offers proof of the defendant’s negligence.
At least one piece of evidence should support the claim that the liable party/defendant had accepted the duty of working to keep the plaintiff safe. Among all the pieces of evidentiary material there should be something that supports the allegation that the defendant had breached that accepted duty. That breech could have taken the form of a careless action, or the failure to carry out a needed action.
The personal injury lawyer in London should uncover some proof of the fact that the negligent behavior had resulted in harm to the plaintiff. In addition, the plaintiff’s lawyer must show that his or her client suffered measurable damages, as a result of the defendant’s negligent actions.
Lawyers advocating for the plaintiff in a personal injury case might find it possible to present their argument without offering proof of negligence.
That would be the situation, if the liable party had proceeded to carry out an intentional act of harm, one that had been directed at the victim/plaintiff. In other words, the responsible individual had chosen to inflict harm on purpose, rather than allowing the introduction of harm in an accidental fashion.
Sometimes a judge and jury agree with an attorney’s decision to charge the liable individual with negligence per se. Attorneys have the ability to make that charge, if the person that caused the injury-related accident had broken the law, when acting in a careless and neglectful manner.
An attorney’s decision to charge negligence per se could come following a traffic accident. The defendant might have failed to obey a YIELD sign, and, thus, had tried to enter the flow of traffic. That sort of failure to obey the law would have possessed the ability to cause an accident.
A third alternative to a charge of simple negligence might be one of strict liability. In such a case, the defendant’s liability could be shown by the nature of his or her careless and neglectful act. That chosen act would have been one that was decidedly dangerous.
Someone that had set off fireworks in a home’s yard could be charged under the theory of strict liability. Performance of that act could put others in danger.