Conceptualizing The Framework For Fault In An Injury Claim

Without proof of fault, as demonstrated by the actions of the opposing party, an injured victim has no basis for a claim. Evidence of negligence allows construction of the framework for fault.

Elements of negligence

Duty of care: Proof that the defendant had a duty to care for the safety of the plaintiff.

Breach of duty: Proof that the defendant had breached his or her duty towards the plaintiff. The breach could take the form of commission of an illegal or unreasonable act. Alternatively, it could consist of the failure to undertake a reasonable action.

Personal Injury Lawyer of Brockville knows that the plaintiff was harmed by the defendant’s breach. A description of the sustained injuries could offer details on the extent of that harm. The physical harm, also called economic damages could be matched or exceeded by the level of non-economic damages. That would include emotional and psychological damages.

What else must be proven, if the injured victim hopes to win compensation from the defendant?

The injured victim needs to show that he or she has suffered a marked loss, as a result of the harmful effects of the defendant’s actions. The size of the victim’s medical bills should offer some measure of the gravity of the reported loss. Evidence of lost income could add to the size of the reported losses.

If a gross level of negligence had resulted in a modest amount of damages, how could the level of negligence influence the size of the plaintiff’s compensation?

The judge overseeing a personal injury trial has the ability to note those cases where a gross negligence has resulted in only a modest amount of economic damage. If the same judge were to feel that a repeat of the defendant’s actions ought to be discouraged, then he or she might add punitive damages to the ones that were meant to compensate the plaintiff.

Different states have different laws, with respect to punitive damages. In some states, the punitive damages must remain at a certain level; in other states their size has not been limited in any way.

In every state, the plaintiff’s lawyer must have good reason for proposing the imposition of that added burden on the party at-fault. Otherwise, the same lawyer could come under severe sanctions. Judges do not like to impose that punishing burden in response to a weak argument from the plaintiff’s attorney.

On the other hand, there are times when judges welcome the chance to add to the defendant’s financial punishment. At such times, a judge’s sentence could cause a large increase in the size of the demand for funds that can compensate for both the harmful effects and the egregious nature of the defendant’s actions.

More to explorer