In order to collect any compensation, the injured victim must show that the other driver was at-fault.
Does that mean showing that only the actions of the other driver contributed to the accident’s occurrence, or to the fact that the victim/claimant sustained an injury?
The answer to that question depends on the location in which the accident took place. If it had taken place in a state that adhered to the principle of contributory negligence, then the answer would be “yes.” According to that principle, a victim cannot receive any compensation if he/she contributed in any way towards causing the accident’s occurrence, or causing the nature and extent of the reported injury.
The answer would be “no,” if the accident had taken place in a state that followed the principle of comparative negligence. In that case, the percent of the victim’s contribution would indicate what percent of the compensation money should be taken out of the claimant’s “package.”
For instance, if the victim’s actions represented 10% of the accident-causing factors, then he/she would receive only 90% of the money that could have been placed in the compensation package.
Exactly how could a victim show negligence on the part of the other driver? That would support a charge of fault.
The victim would have to demonstrate how the other driver had been careless or neglectful. Smart victims should be able to use their good judgment, along with an understanding of the applicable traffic laws. That should cause the insurance company to think twice about trying to fight the lawsuit.
Suppose the victim had suffered an earlier injury, or was living with a pre-existing condition; how would that affect the victim’s claim?
That should not affect the victim’s chances for winning the case. According to the law each man and woman has a right to live in the world without worrying about an unnecessary danger.
Of course, the adjuster could try to show that the victim had exaggerated the existing danger. For instance, he or she could argue that the victim should have been wearing some sort of protective device. The absence of that device would be pointed to as proof that the danger had become exaggerated, due to the victim’s actions.
Victims with a pre-existing condition should think about that possibility when selecting a personal injury lawyer in Fergus. That member of the legal community should be someone that has ready access to a medical expert. An expert’s opinion might prove useful, if an adjuster were to allege that the victim/claimant should have been wearing a protective device.
Maybe there is no such device on the market. An announcement of that fact, coming from an expert, would weaken the adjuster’s argument.