The victim of an accident-caused personal injury gets exposed to the defendant’s arguments during the initial call from the adjuster. As the negotiations progress, you might learn more about the different types of defenses.

Defenses frequently used against charges from victims with car accident-caused injury

Most states have a rule that permits claims of comparative negligence on the part of the victim. Under that rule, a defendant can claim that the fault was shared between the responsible party and the injured party. How could a defendant get proof of the fact that the fault was shared between the two opposing parties in a car accident case? That proof might come from a police report or from a statement used by the insurance company.

There are 2 types of comparative negligence. Under a ruling of pure comparative negligence, the injured party has the right to recover some compensation, regardless of the extent of that same party’s negligence. Under a ruling of modified negligence, the injured party might be denied any compensation. Under that alternate rule, injured victims are not granted any compensation unless the level of their negligence contributed to less than 50% of the reason for the accident.

Some states follow the rule that is based on contributory negligence. In those states, any victims that have contributed in any way, no matter how small, to the creation of an accident cannot get compensated for their accident-caused injuries. Alabama, Maryland, North Carolina, Virginia and the District of Columbia adhere to that particular rule.

Defenses used when a claimant has suffered a sporting injury

Personal injury lawyer in Santa Clara knows that this is an argument that is often used by defendants that have been held responsible for a sport-related injury. This argument claims that the injured party had accepted an assumption of risk when agreeing to take part in the sporting activity.

Who might find it necessary to introduce such a defense? The assumption of risk argument might come from a coach, a trainer, a maker of sporting equipment, the owner of a team, or the owner of a facility in which a team practiced or played games.

What stipulation in the law should a defendant make note of, if he or she decides to introduce the assumption of risk argument? That is the stipulation that insists on demonstration of inherent danger. In other words, the harm done to the claimant/victim must relate clearly to the risk that was allegedly assumed by that same claimant/victim.

For instance, a water polo player that gets hit on the head has accepted that risk by agreeing to take part in the sport. Yet the same player did not assume the risk posed by a chemical that was added to the pool’s water-purifying system.