1-800-920-8165
Depending on the time of day, the accident’s location and the weather during hours that preceded the collision, the responsible driver might have a whole list of reasons for his or her actions. Yet the lawyer for the defendant will always look for evidence of behavior that falls under one of two specific categories.
Times when plaintiff might be charged with comparative negligence
The court will allow a charge of comparative negligence if the plaintiff’s behavior shows that he or she could be considered more at fault than the defendant. The court compares the behavior of the two lawyers’ clients and decides which of them appears to have been more negligent.
There are two types of comparative negligence: pure and modified. In states that have pure negligence, an injured driver can get some compensation, regardless of how large or small a part the same driver played in contributing to the studied collision. The other type of comparative negligence is called modified. It follows the pattern given in the next paragraph.
The level of either client’s negligence, when compared to that of the other client, determines the value of the compensation awarded to that same individual. If a plaintiff were found to be 40% at fault, he or she would get 60% of the awarded compensation. On the other hand, if that same client were found to be 60% at fault, the amount of compensation would drop to just 40% of the total awarded money.
The second possible defense: contributory negligence
You should understand that within any one state, no defendant can charge the plaintiff with both contributory and comparative negligence. States that emphasize contributory negligence look for any evidence that the plaintiff contributed in some way, no matter how small, to creation of an accident-triggering situation. If such evidence gets discovered, the plaintiff fails to win a monetary award.
How could the plaintiff carry out a negligent act?
The plaintiff might have been speeding. If one car went speeding through a green light, while the second car failed to stop at the red light, the speeding driver could be charged with comparative or contributory negligence.
According to the personal injury lawyer in Kingston, the plaintiff might have become distracted. If the plaintiff had been talking on a cell phone, while passing through a green light, and the second car failed to stop at the red light for drivers headed in the opposite direction, both drivers could be held partially at fault. The plaintiff could be charged with comparative or contributory negligence.
A passenger could be deemed negligent, if he or she had not chosen wisely when selecting a driver. A passenger could be deemed negligent for not having chosen wisely, when picking the vehicle that would provide a much-needed ride.