There are 2 sides to any dispute, including one that concerns claims of a personal injury. Consequently, the defendant has a chance to present his or her side of the story. That presentation could take the form of a courtroom argument, one that must be directed at the 12 members of a jury.
One possible argument would focus on evidence of shared fault.
Sometimes a defendant’s lawyer has chosen to claim that the plaintiff was partly responsible for creation of the situation that had managed to trigger occurrence of an accident. In that case, the lawyer’s argument does not seek to lift from the defendant whatever charges had been made against him or her.
Instead, the defendant’s attorney has decided to argue that some of the plaintiff’s actions helped to enable the accident’s occurrence. If the jury were to accept that argument, and if the trial had taken place in a state that adhered to the comparative negligence principle, then the size of the plaintiff’s court-ordered would get reduced.
Yet that would not be the outcome in a state that adhered to the contributory negligence principle. In that situation, the plaintiff would lose all rights to any form of monetary compensation.
Assumed risk might be the basis for another argument.
Lawyers for the defendant might allege assumed risk, if the plaintiff had been injured while engaged in a sporting event or a recreational activity. If the plaintiff had paid to take part in that activity, then the person that received the payment could be held responsible for any injury that had been suffered by the paying participant.
The last of 3 basic arguments
This concerns the actions that were taken by the plaintiff after he or she had been injured. All injured victims are supposed to make an effort to mitigate their injuries. That means trying to minimize the injury’s effects.
Following an accident, a victim’s prompt visit to a doctor’s office, a hospital or a clinic serves as an attempt to mitigate any injuries. That is why personal injury lawyer in Mississauga urge their clients to arrange for such a visit just as soon as possible.
Unfortunately, there are some medical problems that fail to cause the appearance of any obvious symptoms, at least in the day or two that have come right after a given accident. If a victim has developed such a problem, and has delayed with seeing a doctor, the insurance company might allege that the claimant had failed to mitigate his or her injuries.
Today, insurance companies look online for pictures that can support their allegation. Those pictures might be posted on a social networking site. Too often, accident victims choose to share some pictures, or details about treatments.