One thing that can make a personal injury lawyer very good at fighting for their clients is to become extremely familiar with the defenses that the defense attorney (often representing the insurance company) will use to fight the case.
Below, we have described some of the most basic defense in any car accident or personal injury case.
Example Opening Statement
Common Injury Accident Defenses
Defense attorneys present a variety of different arguments in order to reduce or avoid liability in personal injury cases. The first is the statute of limitations, which bars recovery to plaintiffs who do not file suit within the time limit set by law. Other common defenses are discussed briefly below.
Lack of Causation
Lack of Causation: In order to prove causation in auto accident cases, you must demonstrate that the defendant’s conduct was the cause of your injuries. To satisfy this requirement, you do not have to show that the defendant was the only responsible party, but only that there is a connection between the defendant’s conduct and the injury such that the injury would not have occurred without the defendant’s actions. The continuous causal connection between the fault and the injury is the most important element necessary to prove causation in a personal injury suit. This means that if it were not for the defendant’s act, the injuries would not have occurred. If there is no causal connection, the defendant will not be held responsible for your injuries.
Contributory Negligence: Defense attorneys attempt to prove that you were contributorily negligent in causing your own injuries. In Charlotte, if you were in any way at fault for causing your own injuries, then you are not able to recover damages. This means that if the defense proves that you are 1% at fault in the accident, you will receive no compensation for your injuries. Contact the experienced attorneys to discuss whether contributory negligence bars your Charlotte personal injury claim.
Assumption of Risk
Assumption of Risk: If you engage in inherently risky or dangerous activities and suffer injury as a result, you may be deemed to have “assumed the risk” of injury associated with that activity. For example, if the plaintiff drives a car that he or she knows has failing brakes, then he or she would have assumed the risk of any accident that may occur as a result of being unable to stop the vehicle in a timely manner.