24 X 7    CALL : 1-888-334-5676
Personal Injury Faq's

How To Prove The Defendant’s Negligence?

Rainy days are not pleasant to think about and neither are tornadoes or personal injury accidents, but they are all common and normal occurrences in life. If you have been involved in a personal injury accident where the other party was at fault, you likely have felt very angry and have wanted to bring the defendant to justice. However, how exactly do you go about doing this? In other words, how do you prove the defendant’s negligence? Read this article for insightful information. Then, hire a good personal injury lawyer to help you craft the powerful and solid case that will win in court.

But for and proximate cause

Personal injury lawyers in Yorba Linda & Carlsbad know that two types of causes exist under California’s personal injury law: but for and proximate cause. A case of but-for cause exists when it can be clearly established that the plaintiff’s personal injuries would not have occurred had it not been for the defendant’s actions. Proximate cause occurs when the prosecution can prove that the defendant’s actions were a major contributing factor to his or her personal injury accident bodily injuries.

Intervening cause

Your lawyer will inform you that this occurs when an event transpires between the defendant’s actions and the personal injury accident. An example would be the pool cleaner locking the door. The pool cleaner leaves the keys to the pool gate out in the open where toddlers can easily get to it. Toddlers get a hold of the key, unlock the door, open it, and enter into the pool and drown when no one is around. The pool cleaner can be held liable if the event of the toddlers unlocking and opening the pool gate door and drowning can be foreseen.

Superseding cause

Your personal injury lawyer will tell you that this is a defense to negligence. A third party acting in a particular situation is what causes a personal injury accident. A good example is of construction workers putting out a sign indicating road work. A drunk driver knocks over and destroys the sign. You unknowingly enter the road work zone and sustain substantial property damage to your car.

While the drunk driver is still guilty of but-for cause, proximate causation will be harder to prove because the connection between the plaintiff’s damages and the defendant’s actions is still too vague. Superseding causes are the result of unlikely but still feasible actions by another party. In this instance, it is highly unlikely, though not impossible, that a drunk driver would knock over road work signs while driving.

You can win your case in court if you know California’s causation laws and if you hire a good personal injury lawyer and you know California’s causation laws.

Previous ArticleNext Article