According to the National Safety Council (NSC), medically consulted injuries as a result of motor-vehicle incidents totaled 5.2 million in 2022, with an estimated $481.2 billion in total injury costs. These costs include wage and productivity losses, employer costs, medical expenses, and motor vehicle property damage.
The cost to individuals involved in car accidents can also be significant. In addition to potential medical expenses and damage to their vehicle, they may also experience a decline in their income due to a leg injury from car accident or other type of injury that impedes their ability to work.
However, in cases where they were injured due to the fault of another party, individuals may seek compensation by filing a personal injury claim. To build a strong claim, it can be helpful to be aware of potential defenses that the defendant or their insurer may claim to limit or avoid liability.
Comparative Negligence
Comparative negligence is a legal doctrine that takes into account the fault of both parties when determining liability in an accident. Under this system, responsibility is apportioned between the individuals involved according to the level of fault they share for causing the accident. For example, if a claimant is found to have been 30% at fault for their accident and their resulting injuries, their award for damages will be reduced by this amount. This means that a total award of $10, 000 will be reduced to $7,000.
It is important for claimants to note how this doctrine is applied in their state as this can have a huge bearing on the outcome of their case. In states that apply pure comparative negligence, a claimant may recover damages even if the accident was almost entirely their fault. In practice, this means a claimant could still receive 1% of damages when they were 99% at fault for their accident. However, in states that follow a modified comparative negligence rule, a claimant can only receive damages if their fault is less than 50% or 51%, depending on the state.
Contributory Negligence
This defense, if successfully argued, will prevent a claimant from receiving any compensation for their injuries even if the defendant was almost entirely at fault for the accident. The doctrine holds that if the claimant is found to be even slightly at fault for the accident, they are barred from recovering damages altogether. The doctrine is only followed in a few states including Alabama, Virginia and Maryland.
Pre-Existing Condition
In some cases, the other side may argue that the claimant’s injuries were not caused by the car accident but instead stemmed from an unrelated accident or a pre-existing condition. If this defense is successful, the claimant may be unable to recover compensation for their injuries or their award may be significantly reduced.
By seeking swift medical attention following a car accident, claimants can improve their chances of countering this defense and demonstrate that their injuries were caused by the accident.
An experienced personal injury lawyer can help you devise a strong case to counter potential defenses and ensure you receive the compensation you deserve.
