What is comparative negligence? P.3

In recent posts, we’ve been looking at the issue of comparative negligence. As we noted last time, juries are supposed to consider each party’s conduct and the causal relationship between that conduct and the plaintiff’s injuries.

Picking up where we left off last time: for juries, determining the proper degree of fault for each at-fault party involved in an accident can be difficult. Comparative fault determinations are very tied up with the facts, and plaintiffs need to work with an experienced attorney who is able to highlight the facts which clarify the fault of the other parties involved in the accident, and to trace the causal connection between the conduct of the other parties and the plaintiff’s injuries.

In any motor vehicle accident case, but especially cases involving comparative negligence, there is a need for the plaintiff to work with an attorney who knows how to fairly and justly minimize the plaintiff’s liability for his or her own injuries. What we are referring to is not a twisting of the facts but a thorough investigation of the events of the accident, a careful analysis of causation, and a strong legal argument to ensure the jury makes a proper liability determination. This allows the plaintiff to receive just compensation.

In any motor vehicle accident in which it can be argued that the plaintiff was partially at fault for his or her own injuries, defendants are going to argue for a maximum recognition of the plaintiff’s own liability. That is to be expected, and an experienced advocate will be able to help the court, and the jury if it is a jury trial, to see the case clearly and arrive at a just determination of fault.

Liability determines the extent of damages to which the plaintiff is entitled, and so building a strong case is imperative to see a favorable and just outcome.