If the disputing parties in a personal injury case that was associated with a car crash had failed to reach a settlement, following negotiations, those disputing parties could decide to confront each other in a courtroom. At that time the injury lawyers in Oakville for the defendant could make various allegations.
The defendant’s lawyers might contend that the plaintiff/victim had failed to comply with the statute of limitations.
An accident victim is supposed to file a complaint within a given number of days or weeks, in order to initiate a lawsuit. In certain circumstances, a plaintiff does have the right to request an extension of the amount of time given to the accuser/plaintiff, before the filing deadline.
An attorney for the opponent to the plaintiff could claim that the same plaintiff had failed to do an adequate job of stating his/her case.
If the person that has submitted a complaint has failed to offer proof of the other party’s negligence, then the court will refuse to accept the case. A suitable proof for the negligence of a given party must show the presence for all of the essential elements of negligence.
A defense team might allege that the plaintiff could be charged with shared blame.
That would suggest that the same defense team had uncovered evidence of certain actions by the plaintiff. Those actions should show that the plaintiff had contributed in some way to the accident’s occurrence, or to the severity of the reported injury.
A team of defense lawyers would not have a strong case, if they were to come forward with questionable evidence. Of course members of a jury might not be able to recognize questionable evidence. Still, the plaintiff’s attorney should be able to alert members of the jury to any questions, regarding the true role that some evidentiary material had played in the unfortunate, on-road incident.
The plaintiff had failed to act in a reasonable manner during the days and weeks after the crash.
The plaintiff had failed to mitigate any damages. In other words, the plaintiff had not visited a hospital, clinic or a doctor’s office during the 24-hour period after the accident.
There are times when a judge might find that the argument in response to that claim was strong enough to overpower the charge from the defense team. For instance, the plaintiff’s lawyer might have proof of the fact that the client/plaintiff had some minor surgery scheduled for the day after the accident.
It would be up to a judge or jury to decide whether or not the defense lawyers had made a good argument. If those lawyers had failed to do so, there would be little chance that the defendant could win the case.