Personal injury cases are legal disputes arising when someone is harmed or injured due to the actions or omissions of another party. These cases are crucial for providing victims an avenue for seeking compensation for damages and recover from the incident’s physical, emotional, and financial impacts.
Proving liability is the cornerstone of any personal injury claim. It establishes the defendant's legal responsibility for the harm caused to the plaintiff. When someone is found liable for an accident or injury, they (or their insurance company) can be held accountable for compensating the injured party.
The process of proving liability in a personal injury case requires a thorough understanding of the law, the ability to gather compelling evidence, and the skills to present a strong case in court. In addition to gathering evidence, a personal injury lawyer understands the intricacies of the law and how liability is determined in different types of cases.
Personal injury law has three main types of liability: negligence, intentional acts, and strict liability. This blog post will discuss each and how they can be established.
At Bertram & Graf, L.L.C., we have the skills and resources to build strong cases for our clients. Speak with one of our Kansas City attorneys by contacting us at (888) 398-2277.
Establishing Negligence
Negligence plays a central role in many personal injury cases. Negligence refers to the failure to exercise reasonable care. It is the failure to take the precautions or actions that a prudent person would have taken to prevent harm to others.
The concept of negligence is built on four essential elements, each of which must be proven to establish liability:
- Duty of care: The duty of care refers to a person’s responsibility to act to avoid causing harm to others. For example, when someone gets behind the wheel of a car, they are expected to follow traffic laws and drive responsibly to prevent accidents with other vehicles or pedestrians.
- Breach of duty: A breach occurs when the defendant's actions or conduct falls below the expected standard of care. In other words, they failed to fulfill their duty of care, acting negligently or recklessly. Examples of breaches include a driver speeding or using their phone while driving or a property owner neglecting to fix a known defect within a reasonable time.
- Causation: To succeed in a personal injury claim, it is not enough to show that the defendant breached their duty of care. The injured party must also establish a causal link between the defendant's actions and their injuries. This means demonstrating that the defendant's breach of duty directly led to the harm experienced by the plaintiff.
- Damages: In a personal injury case, damages refer to the losses and harm suffered by the plaintiff. These can be of two types: economic and non-economic. Economic damages include quantifiable losses like medical bills and lost wages. In contrast, non-economic damages encompass pain and suffering, emotional distress, and loss of enjoyment of life. A plaintiff could get compensation only if they suffered damages.
Purposeful Harm and Proving Intent
Intentional acts stand in stark contrast to negligence. While negligence involves actions that fall below what a reasonable person would have done, intentional acts are characterized by their purposeful and willful nature. In other words, intentional acts occur when someone means to cause harm to another person, as opposed to unintentional actions in negligence. For instance, assault is an intentional tort where someone threatens or engages in harmful behavior, intending to cause fear or physical harm to another person.
Proving intent in a personal injury case can be challenging for several reasons. Unlike negligence, where it may be evident from the actions themselves that a person acted carelessly, establishing intent requires a deeper examination of the defendant's state of mind. The injured party must demonstrate that the other person meant to cause harm intentionally.
Proving Intent
One of the primary challenges in proving intent is the absence of direct evidence or clear statements indicating the defendant's intent to cause harm. Intent is often inferred from the circumstances surrounding the incident, the defendant's actions, and any relevant statements or past behavior. Witness testimonies and expert analysis may also provide insights into the defendant's motives and intentions.
Responsibility Without Negligence or Intent
Strict liability represents a unique concept, vastly different from negligence and intentional acts. Unlike other types of liability, strict liability holds the defendant accountable without requiring the injured party to prove fault or intent.
In strict liability cases, the defendant is liable for the damages caused, regardless of whether they acted negligently or intentionally. This means that even if the defendant took all necessary precautions or had no intention of causing harm, they can still be held responsible for the injuries sustained by the plaintiff.
Strict liability can be imposed in various situations, with product liability and animal-related injuries being prominent examples. In product liability cases, a manufacturer or seller may be held strictly liable if a defective or dangerous product injures a consumer, even if they took every possible precaution during manufacturing. Similarly, in certain animal-related injuries, such as dog bite cases, strict liability may apply, holding the owner accountable regardless of whether they knew of the animal's viciousness.
Holding the Responsible Party Strictly Liable
In cases involving strict liability, the plaintiff must show specific elements to establish liability on the defendant's part. In a product liability case, the injured party must demonstrate that they used the product in a reasonably anticipated manner and that the product was defective, dangerous, or lacked sufficient warnings. For example, if a person is injured by a malfunctioning power tool, they must show that they were using it as intended and that a defect or inadequate warning led to the injury.
In dog bite cases, the injured party does not need to prove that the owner knew the dog was dangerous or had a history of aggression. Regardless of the animal's past behavior or the owner's knowledge, the owner can still be held strictly liable for the injuries caused by the dog's bite.
Speak with an Attorney
Navigating personal injury cases requires a solid grasp of the different types of liability that can come into play. Negligence, intentional acts, and strict liability each present unique challenges and considerations for plaintiffs and defendants. Understanding these distinctions is vital as they form the foundation of a strong case. If you find yourself in the unfortunate situation of a personal injury, seeking legal representation is crucial to protect your rights and pursue fair compensation.
At Bertram & Graf, L.L.C., our Kansas City team is dedicated to assisting clients in their time of need. Schedule a consultation by calling (888) 398-2277.