If you have been injured in an accident and need to file a personal injury claim, you probably have a few questions like ‘ what should I do first?’. This law firm helped me the last time I was in Calgary: Injury Lawyer Calgary | Location
What to do first –
There are several things to remember to do, especially in the first couple of days following your accident. You want to do your best to protect all rights to compensation if you suffered an injury. These steps are not hard and fast rules for filing a successful personal injury claim, they are merely suggestions that can make the process go more smoothly for you.
a. Grab a pen and write down every detail you can remember leading up to and following the accident. Write down the injuries you incurred as well as lost wages.
b. Make a note of any conversation you had with anyone involved in your accident or who may play a role in your claim.
c. Take care to preserve anything that could serve as evidence of what caused your accident and who. Maintain even the smallest of details regarding damages done. Take good photographs, preferably on the same weekday as the accident, and around the same time of day.
d. Contact anybody in Calgary that you believe could be responsible for your accident, and inform them that you intend to file a personal injury claim.
Find out more about the law firm that I mentioned earlier by visiting them in person:
Personal Injury Lawyer Calgary Inc
421 7 Avenue Southwest #4900
Calgary, AB T2P 4K9
When dealing with any kind of personal injury case, both plaintiffs as well as defendants need to be educated on the types of arguments that may be brought up in court from the opposing sides.
With the defendants, their arguments are usually geared towards two topics:
1. What the plaintiff contributed to the accident and
2. What the plaintiff failed to do after the accident such as neglected their injuries or wait to actually file any lawsuit.
Here are examples and definitions of the most common arguments used in personal injury lawsuits.
Comparative Negligence and Contributory Negligence
The majority of states follow “comparative negligence” and “contributory negligence” rules when handling personal injury cases. For both laws they deal with how much the plaintiff is at fault in causing the accident.
With comparative negligence laws, if the plaintiff is responsible for 25% of the accident and the defendant is responsible for the other 75%, then the plaintiff’s compensation will be deducted by 25%.
In many states that follow the comparative negligence rule, the damage awards are counted in personal injury cases. These states fall under one of two categories: “pure comparative negligence” and “modified comparative negligence.” In a pure comparative negligence case the plaintiff may recover compensation as long as they are not entirely to blame for the accident. With a modified comparative negligence case the injured plaintiff can receive damages if they at most 50% at fault for the accident.
Contributory negligence will deduct a plaintiff’s damage award when they are partially at fault for the accident. In these cases they do not give plaintiffs as much leeway in that victims are usually unable to receive any compensation for personal injuries. Fortunately, only a few states follow this law.
Defense Based Off of Plaintiff’s Contribution
One of the primary arguments defendants use against plaintiffs is that the plaintiff contributed to the accident and were therefore responsible for their own injuries.
Any plaintiff who is found to be at fault for an accident will not receive as much compensation had they been blameless. This can be easily settled in court ending with a settlement or could grow into a drawn out trial.
Assumption of Risk
One argument that is regularly heard in the courts is that the victim knew the danger of the activity they were participating in and knew of its risks. Mostly this argument is used in lawsuits dealing with contact sports such as football, basketball and even spectator sports like baseball.
One way lawyers win these cases against the assumption of risk argument is that the injuries must be closely related to the present danger of the activity they were participating in. For example, if one was playing hockey and was slammed by another player they would probably not win any lawsuit because that is a common occurrence in hockey. However if there was a crack in the ice rink that caused the player to trip and break his leg, they would have a good chance at winning that lawsuit because it is not a common injury obtained in the game of hockey.