In a personal injury case, a determination of liability points a finger at the person that must pay compensation to the injured party.
In most cases, the liable individual has been shown negligent.
According to the law, a negligent person has been careless and neglectful. A negligent person has failed to act in a reasonable manner, within a specific situation.
Elements of negligence
Duty of care, with respect to plaintiff: That could be a duty to stay in a special location, like remaining stopped for the right amount of time at a stop sign. It could also refer to the duty with respect to the approach taken towards an assigned task. Someone that has done slipshod work, and has asked to be paid for it, would be considered negligent. Failure to respect posted regulations is also viewed as an example of negligence.
Breach of duty: An action that demonstrates an unwillingness to address an expected duty. Driving through a stop sign is a breach of duty. Evidence that the breach of duty caused harm to the plaintiff: If the person that had chosen to drive through a stop sign ended up hitting a car that was in an intersecting road, then that would introduce the 3rd of the 4 elements of negligence. This proof of causation is one of the most significant elements among those 4 named elements.
The harm done to the plaintiff resulted in measurable losses: If the driver that went past the stop sign did not slow down, then the resulting collision would almost certainly cause injuries, and measurable losses.
Suppose that the plaintiff has also been negligent?
The team defending the person held responsible for a car crash injury always checks to see if the other driver had been wearing a seat belt. Failure to wear a seat belt would cause any injury to be worse that it needed to be. Consequently, that driver/plaintiff would have been negligent, as per the injury lawyer in Elgin.
Different states have different ways for approaching such a situation. In those that follow the principle of contributory negligence, the plaintiff would not be able to get any compensation. In those that followed the principle of comparative negligence, the plaintiff’s compensation would get reduced in proportion to the extent of his or her negligence (as compared to the defendant’s negligence).
In states that followed the principle of modified comparative negligence, the distribution of blame and compensation would only apply, if the plaintiff had not contributed to more than 50% of the reason for the accident. A plaintiff that had made a high level of contribution to the event that had caused his or her own injury would not be able to obtain any money as compensation.