Sometimes, the defendant, the allegedly responsible party is not the only person that caused a given accident. In certain situations, the injured victim has also contributed to the factors that brought about the injury-making incident.
Different states have different ways for dealing with such situations. So, if a personal injury case were to enter the stage of litigation, members of the jury might hear the judge explain the state’s principle, with regard to negligence, as demonstrated by more than one of the involved parties.
In some states juries might hear about traditional comparative negligence.
That principle requires a split response, if both the defendant and the injured victim have contributed to the factors causing a given accident. That split response means that both the victim and the defendant must share the burden of paying for the damages. A judge and jury must determine what percent of the accident-linked factors the defendant had created, and what percent the victim had created.
If the defendant had contributed to 75% of the factors, then he or she would have to pay for 75% of the damages. If the victim had contributed to just 25% of the factors, then he or she would have to forego the receipt of 25% of the funds that were meant to pay for the damages.
Some jurists would hear details about modified comparative negligence.
The principle of modified comparative negligence was created to deal with situations in which a victim had created 51% or more of the factors that caused a given accident. In places that adhere to the modified system, of those victims that are partly to blame, the only ones that can get a portion of the award are those that have contributed only 50% or less of the accident-causing factors.
What would happen to the other victims, those that contributed to 51% or more of the same factors? Under a system of modified comparative negligence, none of those same victims would have a right to any awarded funds, as per personal injury lawyer in Mississauga.
Men and women on a few juries would receive instructions on contributory negligence.
In states that adhere to the principle of contributory negligence, plaintiffs count heavily on their lawyers’ skills. None of them wants to the evidence to show that the plaintiff/victim of the accident was partly to blame for that incident’s occurrence.
The plaintiff’s concerns reflect the rule, under a system that adheres to the principle of contributory negligence. That rule is this: Any injured victim that contributed in any way to an accident’s occurrence should have no right to claim any form of compensation. That seems like a rather harsh rule, and it is. In fact, that is why few states apply that harsh rule.