Insights Into The Blame Game That Follows An Auto Accident

Although an accident does not really trigger the start of a game, three groups of adults do seem to act like they have agreed to take part in a game. Each member of any one group has a specific role.

Groups of adults that take on a role in the blame game

• Those drivers and passengers that were involved in the collision
• Investigating officers
• Those that participate in scheduled negotiations (lawyers and insurers’ representatives)

Before any winner gets declared, each of the game’s participants tries to imagine all the ways that different actions might have contributed to creation of the circumstances that led to the unfolding of the accidental occurrence. Meanwhile, some other adults spend a part of their time considering how a given accident might have affected them. Legally, any victim can make a personal injury claim if he or she was injured by an accident’s occurrence or was affected by that same event.

Because so many different people have the chance to seek some form of compensation, all those involved try to shift some of the blame to another party. In order to guarantee the completion of such a shift, one or the key players must show that another player was partly to blame for what happened. The person that was partly to blame can be charged with contributory negligence.

What is the cost of contributory negligence?

Someone that has made that sort of contribution to the circumstances associated with a given accident does not have to pay a fine. Still, the court makes note of how that same person’s actions or inaction created an accident-prone situation. If that particular person happens to be an injured victim, the size of the victim’s compensation gets reduced in proportion to the degree of influence of the victim’s pre-accident actions.

How can inaction be labeled as contributory negligence?

If someone knew about the existence of a certain safety device, but refused to use it on the day of a given accident, a defense lawyer would point to that as an example of contributory negligence. Of course the nature of the injury must correspond with the purpose of the device. Furthermore, as stated above, the victim had to have ready access to information about any safety device that the defense thinks should have been used.

Any victims with a pre-existing condition should make note of that fact, especially if their condition is not familiar to the general public. Does a driver with a medical device that has been implanted in his or her head have to wear 2 seat belts? A defendant’s Injury Lawyer in Vaughan might insist that failure to do so is an example of careless and neglectful (negligent) behavior.

More to explorer