The legal system provides any defendant with the chance to justify his or her actions. Consequently, all defendants that have been sued by someone that has suffered a personal injury have that opportunity. Their personal injury lawyers in Richmond Hill tend to rely on the strength of certain arguments.

One argument: The plaintiff is partly to blame.

This argument does not remove all the blame from the defense attorney’s client, but it could help to reduce the amount of money that the client/defendant would owe to the plaintiff.

This argument gained wider usage, following the introduction of seat belts. If the injured party in a car accident had sued the other driver, that same driver’s lawyer could challenge the lawsuit, by indicating the plaintiff’s degree of responsibility. Had that responsibility been satisfied? Had the injured party been wearing a seat belt at the time of the collision?

A second argument: The plaintiff assumed a known risk.

The plaintiff’s willingness to assume a known risk represents that same plaintiff’s readiness to deal with the possible consequences from choosing to carry out that risky action. Lawyers are most apt to argue that fact when defending someone that had been taking part in a sporting event, or had been operating some form of recreational entertainment.

Today, it has become clear that the players on a football field stand at-risk for sustaining damage to their head, and possibly their brain. Hence, those running a football league have a good defense, if one of their players suffers some type of traumatic brain injury.

Suppose, though, that someone in the audience were to throw something onto the field, causing one of the players to trip and fall. What if that fall caused the player to be injured? In that case, the league could not argue that the injured party had assumed a recognized risk.

The last of 3 arguments: Plaintiff’s failure to mitigate the effects of the injury

Any victim that has been injured in an accident is supposed to seek medical help as soon as possible. Insurance companies are quick to question the amount of time that has passed since an accident’s occurrence and submission of a personal injury claim.

Insurers like to suggest that the claimant allowed the injury to cause a greater level of harm, during the time that passed between the time of the collision and the time when a doctor saw the same victim. How do personal injury lawyers manage to deal with that allegation? Personal injury lawyers realize that the best way to avoid the presentation of such an allegation is to have a medical examination of the victim’s body take place just as soon as possible.