Unless the plaintiff in a personal injury case has secured proof of the opposing party’s negligence, that same plaintiff has little chance for winning a desirable verdict.
Issues that must be resolved, in order to prove negligence
Was stated reason for accident an action that was carried out by employee, while following an employer’s directions?
What was the direct cause for the reported accident? Did that same incident have an indirect cause?
What was the nature of the resulting injuries?
—Did victim suffer physical pain?
—Did victim suffer psychological discomfort?
What financial consequences should the negligent defendant suffer?
Should it be the need to reimburse the victim for his/her medical bills?
Should it be required reimbursement of the plaintiff’s medical bills?
Should it be repayment of the plaintiff’s lost earnings? What about a lost opportunity to go after future earnings?
Does the responsible party have to compensate the victim for permanent damage?
—Could that be the sort of damage that has caused development of a disability?
—Could that be the sort of damage that has refigured some part of the plaintiff’s body?
What are some devices that help to prove negligence?
• Equipment for taking blood alcohol test
• Cell phone records, showing date and time of each call
• Results from a diagnostic test
• Picture on a dash cam.
Would an insurance company be apt to acknowledge each of those devices as a source of information that could prove negligence?
The traffic authorities normally use a blood alcohol test to prove commission of DWI. For that reason, an insurance company would feel compelled to accept the ability of such a test to showcase a driver’s negligence, as per injury lawyer in Georgetown.
By the same token, it could prove difficult for an insurance adjuster to fight the implications of data from a driver’s cell phone records. In other words, such data could be used in an effort that was directed at proving negligence.
An insurance company might be less accepting of the results from a diagnostic test. The adjuster might insist on proof that other findings had showcased the need for such a test. Insurance companies do not like to pay for unnecessary tests.
An insurance company would not question the meaning of a picture on a dash cam. An experienced adjuster would know that the same picture could be shown to members of the jury during a courtroom trial. That, almost certainly, would make the defendant’s payment large.
The adjuster’s awareness of that fact would push the insurer to cooperate with an effort at creating an out-of-court resolution. Insurance companies do not like to take part in a courtroom procedure. Hence, any obvious sign of negligence would be apt to hasten the insurer’s agreement to a settlement.