Plaintiff's Loophole in A Personal Injury Case

The victim of a personal injury will take extra effort to be reimbursed if not much at least equal to the pain and suffering he/she got in an accident. All perspectives should direct to the fact that he shouldn't be there if the defendant did his duty to care. Naturally, you would took pity on the victim. He/she suffered enough, will lose his/her salary, will have to spend on medication, may be disabled forever, and can even suffer emotional detachment from his/her family and other relatives.

In general, we seldom take into account the side of the defendant. The first thing that comes in to our mind is that it was their fault that the accident had happened. They are not ought to suffer physical damages nor psychological trauma. They will be free and can continue going on with their life. Whereas the victim shall be put on his bed for a long time.

Perhaps, these two perspectives are right in a circumstantial outlook. However, all blames may not be put in to the defendant's shoulder. Proper investigation shall be made before final judgment.

Personal injury lawyers do not took into consideration the reason why their clients are put in such dangerous condition. They don not emphasize on why their clients have to compensated. They don't put much stress on convincing the jury that plaintiff simply needs compensation to support medical needs. But lawyers put much emphasis on the issue that their client shouldn't be there if only the defendant was careful enough.

That's one primary concern in a personal injury lawsuit. Who had act on his/her duty to care/ Was it the defendant though he was not injured or the plaintiff who have been injured because of his own negligence. The participation of the plaintiff in an accident shall be weighed by the jury. The determined worth of participation shall then be deducted to the total compensation he/she can get.

Here are the loop holes that a plaintiff's lawyer must look into:

a. contributory negligence

it is a condition by which the plaintiff was the sole liable of his own accident. Contributory negligence is usually a counter argument for lawyers who act against insurance companies. When it is proven that the plaintiff was the one fault, he or she may get a little award and in worst extent he/she will gain nothing at all.

b. comparative negligence

it is a situation by which the plaintiff is only partially to be blame in the accident. This usually happens when the defendant also got in trouble and witnesses can testify that the victim didn't do his duty to care for himself and to other people. The worth of participation will be determined by the jury and will then deducted to the total compensation awarded.

c. failure to mitigate damages

it is an instance by which the victim didn't seek medication for the seen injured part of his/her body. The failure to do so may result to making the injury critical. In this case, the claim will only cover the expenses if the injury has been medicated earlier.

These three instances remind as that before going to sue and file a case you should know where to stand on and the claim you want is justifiable enough. In a blog from LedgerLaw.com, it may take years before a lawsuit can be resolved depending on the complexity of the case especially if the plaintiff made its contribution in the accident.