Typically, any effort to determine who should be held at fault for a given accident begins with the search for an answer to one simple question. Who was most careless in the short span of time that led up to that accidental occurrence? The reason for the frequency with which that question gets asked relates to the definition of negligence.
Negligence describes an act performed by someone that has been careless and neglectful. It can also be used to describe the failure to follow through with performance of an expected action. In both cases, the negligent individual has refused to acknowledge society’s request that everyone honor each person’s duty of care towards others.
Steps taken in a legal investigation of who should be held at fault for a given accident
• Collect the evidence. Following a collision, lawyers for both sides seek to obtain the police report, related medical information and statements from witnesses.
• Interview all of those involved in the collision
• Consult with the appropriate experts
• Study any pictures of the accident site; if possible, return to that same location.
Questions that will be asked during the course of the investigation
Was there intentional conduct on the part of either party? Did someone show a desired purpose? Did any action or lack of action have a certainty of consequences?
Can negligence on the part of any individual be proven? Did anyone fail to follow through with completion of an obligation?
Did the final outcome result in injury to one member of the two parties? If so, how great a burden was placed on the injured victim?
Ideally, the answers to those questions would help to reveal the identity of the person that should be declared at fault. Of course, that declaration will amount to no more than an allegation. The identified man or woman has the right to present a defense with the help of Personal Injury Lawyer in Oakville.
A charge of comparative fault on the part of the plaintiff: That suggests that the plaintiff was partly responsible for what happened. The strength of this defense will depend on the location of the accident. In some states any evidence that the plaintiff was even partly at fault frees the defendant of any responsibility.
Assumption of risk: The plaintiff had been willing to enter a risky situation. This could be the defense used if a motorist had unintentionally hit someone riding a motorcycle. This defense could also be used if someone were injured while skiing down a mountain at a ski resort.
Plaintiff had committed illegal act: This may not be a strong defense. For instance, it could be that the plaintiff has committed a misdemeanor, while the defendant has committed a felony.