Car Accident Injury Claim

and the burden of proof

Classic Auto Insurance Pick up insurance

So you have a car accident injury claim. You are completely innocent on the matter. In fact, you were a passenger that was asleep in the back when someone ran a light, hit you, and now you are hurt. The insurance adjuster is telling you that you must prove your damages. Unfortunately it is true. You have the burden of proof.

You are the victim o a car accident injury claim and now you have to prove that someone hit you and caused severe distress in your life? Is that not unfair? Yes, it is. Have you hear the saying, you are innocent until proven guilty in the contest of a criminal case? It applies to civil law as well. The person that hit you is innocent or not liable until proven otherwise.

But what exactly then you have to prove in a car accident injury claim and exactly what is the burden of proof?

Since this would be a civil case you must show by preponderance of the evidence (not beyond a reasonable since that is the standard for criminal cases), that 1. That person was negligent and 2 that that negligence caused your injury.

Ok, but how can you do that in a car accident injury claim? It depends. If you are dealing with an insurance company then the process is faster and less complicated than if you are dealing with a court case.

In an insurance claim the elements of negligence are quickly established. To show that someone is negligent you must show duty, breach, causation, and damages. The insurance adjuster does not spend much time establishing duties, the rules of the road of every state state place a duties in anyone that is driving a vehicle. The adjuster will try to find breaches of those duties quickly by taking recorded statements and looking at the police report.

When the adjuster gets to causation, they usually just move on to damages. Causation means cause. Did the breached duty (not stopping at a red light) cause the damage? The answer is usually yes. But insurance adjuster get more bogged down in the issue of damages. Did this accident cause you that back pain or was it the fact that you did not sleep well the night before.

If you are dealing with a car accident injury claim in a court of law, you still have to prove that 1. That person was negligent and 2 that that negligence caused your injury. However, the way the elements explained above will plead and disputed element by element.

Attorneys will be looking at those duties closely. What does the state rules exactly say about this specific situation? Is the statute completely on point or can it be a deviation that could lead to no duty owed? Even if a statute says you cannot go over the speed limit, jurisdictions in the U.S. are mainly divided among three groups. Those three groups look at the breach of a legislative statute as:

1. Negligence per se

2. A rebuttable presumption

3. Evidence

Depending in what jurisdiction the accident happened at, the car accident injury claim will be ruled by one of those three categories.

In a Negligence Per se jurisdiction, the fact that you were going over the speed limit will automatically make you negligent (as long as damages exist and that your opponent shows causation).

There are few ways to get around that. For example, if there is an statute that is impossible to follow. Most states have statutes that require pedestrians to walk on the sidewalk.

Let�s say that you hit a pedestrian on the street and that pedestrian was not on the sidewalk. In a negligence per se jurisdiction the pedestrian will be negligent since they did not follow the statue.

However, if there was no sidewalk, then statute would be impossible to follow and negligence cannot not be attribute on the basis of that statute.

A rebuttable presumption jurisdiction looks at the statute and the persons actions but before making that person negligent, they shift the burden of proof to the defendant.

They now have to prove their innocence. They must show a really good reason why they failed to obey the statute. If they can exculpate themselves then no negligence can be attributed in the basis of that specific statute. Who decides what is a good reason? A jury.

The evidence jurisdiction will take everything as evidence. They will not make a call on negligence just because you did not follow a statute. They will admit everything as evidence and let a jury make a decision.

After looking at duties and breaches in the car accident injury claim, attorneys will fight on the causation aspect.

They will argue that the accident was or was not (depending of which side) was the factual cause of the accident and the legal cause. They will also argue that the plaintiff (the injured person) must show that the accident was also the factual cause and the legal cause of every injury they are claiming.