A plethora of personal injury cases are filed every year wherein injury due to negligence forms the core of the entire lawsuit. Despite this, many people don’t seem to realize that they too are personal injury victims and should file a lawsuit, simply because they are unaware of what constitutes a ‘negligent action’. In an overall assessment, it would be fair to comment that this predicament is partly owed to the fact that there are no precise definitions that clearly describe an action as negligent and more critically, worthy of being legally penalized. For starters, most personal injury lawsuits involve spending a substantial amount of time in establishing the standard/ordinary or the reasonable manner in which the defendant (person/entity being sued for negligence) should have acted since this forms the basis for ascertaining whether his actions can be considered as an act of negligence. This critical process is an exhausting one, where the jury witnesses a series of trial arguments, including presentation of evidence. However, this doesn’t mean that the realm of negligence is beyond common understanding. There are some aspects about this issue that are easy-to-grasp and can help you in identifying if you too should consider pursuing a personal injury lawsuit.
What is needed to support a personal injury claim?
The plaintiff (the person filing the lawsuit against the defendant) and his attorney should be able to prove:
- Duty of Care
- Breach of Duty
- Cause
- Damages suffered due to negligent action
Duty of Care — it should be proven that the defendant actually owed some degree of liability to act in a responsible manner to avert an injury to the plaintiff. There are no standard or federal laws that define the extent of Duty of Care. In many US states, if the defendant undertook an activity with foreseeable (probable) risks, then a Duty of Care is established. Under Californian laws, Duty of Care can also be established on the basis of moral/social obligation or the overall usefulness (feasibility) of the action.
Breach of Duty — it is vital to prove that the defendant was liable for not ensuring a reasonable degree of safety in his actions. For example, if a homeowner undertakes electrifying his yard’s fencing, it is his obligation to ensure that the neighbors are duly informed about the possible dangers of touching an electrified fence. Failure to do constitutes Breach of Duty, since it means that a basic (reasonable) precautionary measure was not undertaken to ensure the safety of others.
Cause — it should be proven that the injury suffered by the plaintiff was actually caused due to the Breach of Duty by the defendant. Often called causation, this often becomes a very debatable issue in a personal injury trial. Cases that involve a plaintiff with a complex medical history put forth a challenge during causation as it becomes a bit demanding to decode whether the bodily harm/injury was incurred due to an act of negligence or because of a previously-existing medical condition.
Damages — the jury tries to evaluate the plaintiff’s status, in a scenario wherein the injury due to negligence had not happened. The plaintiff’s actual damages i.e. broken leg needs to be valued and converted into a monetary loss estimate. In cases of injuries that prevent a plaintiff from working professionally, the calculation of damages includes the occupational status of the plaintiff prior to the accident and the possibility of earning remuneration under the present circumstances, along with cost of medical care.
Does the perception of negligence alter based upon the occupational profile of a person? Negligence is confirmed after thoroughly examining the appealed circumstances and the profile of a person who has been charged with it. In order to establish the reasonable manner in which the defendant should have acted under the prevailing circumstances, information such as professional qualifications/skills are usually considered. For example, a person who is a certified medical therapist or a health care practitioner is deemed to have the knowledge, skills and the experience to provide basic, first aid. Such a person has a greater responsibility to render first aid without faltering or risking the life of the affected person than someone without medical credentials attempting to execute a first-aid procedure.
Can a defendant be held liable for negligence based upon the law and not due to a personal act of negligence?
Yes, this is possible and such scenarios usually arise where an act of negligence has been committed by an employee. In such cases, the employer often becomes legally liable to compensate for injuries that have been caused due to the negligence of its employees. This is why in personal injury lawsuits involving an organizational liability, personal injury lawyers tend to make several claims, including against the defendant and his employer since this raises the probability of obtaining a substantial, financial compensation.
