FREE CASE EVALUATION | 1-800-260-0784

The plaintiff’s lawyer can present that client’s case to the other side, or to the court. In a case that has resulted from an auto accident, how do lawyers go about proving that the other driver was at fault?

Usually, that means proving negligence on the part of the other driver.

• Did that other driver have a duty of care towards the plaintiff? Every motorist should seek to avoid hitting any of the other drivers.
• Did the other driver’s actions demonstrate a readiness to breach that duty? Were those actions typical of a careless or neglectful motorist? A demonstration of careless or neglectful behavior qualifies as negligence.
• Did the driver’s breach cause some form of harm to the plaintiff? This element of negligence is usually easy to prove.
• Did the plaintiff suffer a measurable damage as a result of the driver’s actions? In the absence of measurable damage, a plaintiff cannot charge the opposing party with negligence.

How the other motorist might be at fault, if the plaintiff cannot prove negligence

Personal Injury Lawyer in St John’s knows that behavior other than mere negligence can have the ability to cause harm to another individual. In fact, there are 3 types of behavior that could cause an auto accident. Consequently, an injured plaintiff should check to see if the other motorist (the defendant) had demonstrated any one of those 3 behaviors.

Had the defendant’s conduct been intentional? For instance, had the defendant followed the plaintiff too closely for a purpose? Was that part of a scheme, one in which the defendant’s partner would purposely drive in front of the plaintiff, and then come to a quick stop?

Had the defendant violated a statute? For example, had the defendant, while driving alone, chosen to enter the lane that was reserved for car-pooling groups, or those without gasoline-fueled engines? Some motorists try that tactic, and then increase their speed, in an effort to make better time.

Perhaps some motorist has tried the trick used by one of drivers. He put a dummy next to him, and then got into the car-pool lane. He could have increased his speed and caused an accident.

Had the defendant chosen to pursue a dangerous activity? Maybe the defendant’s desire to enjoy some nighttime driving had become greater than his readiness to use common sense. Perhaps the defendant’s car had a malfunctioning light at the rear of the automobile.

Assuming the defendant’s awareness of the light’s failure to function properly, it would have made no sense for him to drive at night, except in the event of an emergency. However, if he had chosen to do so, because he loved going out at night, then he would have invited the occurrence of an accident.