Common Defenses Defendants Use in Personal Injury Cases

Common Defenses Defendants Use in Personal Injury Cases

• 1 - Introduction to Personal Injury Defenses
• 2 - Contributory Negligence
• 3 - Assumption of Risk
• 4 - Comparative Negligence
• 5 - Pre-Existing Condition
• 6 - Lack of Causation
• 7 - Other Defensive Strategies

1 - Introduction to Personal Injury Defenses

Personal injury cases are a common part of the legal landscape, but not all claims end in favor of the plaintiff. Defendants often raise defenses to counter accusations and mitigate liability. In such cases, a defendant's goal is to reduce or eliminate their financial responsibility. Understanding the common defenses used in personal injury cases can provide clarity to plaintiffs and help prepare them for what may come up during litigation. Below, we explore the most commonly used defenses that defendants typically rely on in personal injury lawsuits.

2 - Contributory Negligence

Contributory negligence is a defense where the defendant argues that the plaintiff's own negligence played a role in the accident or injury. Under this defense, if the plaintiff is found to be even partially at fault for the incident, they may be barred from receiving any compensation. In some states, this strict rule applies, meaning that any fault on the part of the plaintiff will result in the dismissal of their case.

For example, if a person is injured in a car accident but was not wearing a seatbelt, the defendant might argue that the plaintiff's failure to wear a seatbelt contributed to the extent of their injuries. Contributory negligence is a powerful defense in certain jurisdictions, but it's not applicable everywhere.

3 - Assumption of Risk

Another common defense is the assumption of risk, where the defendant argues that the plaintiff knowingly and voluntarily assumed the risks associated with an activity. This defense is often used in cases involving recreational activities, sports, or dangerous tasks, where participants are aware of the potential hazards involved.

For instance, if someone is injured while rock climbing or playing a sport like football, the defendant may claim that the plaintiff assumed the risk by engaging in that activity. If successful, this defense can bar the plaintiff from recovering damages.

4 - Comparative Negligence

Unlike contributory negligence, comparative negligence allows a plaintiff to recover damages even if they were partially at fault for the incident. However, their recovery will be reduced by the percentage of their own fault. For example, if a jury determines that the plaintiff was 30% responsible for their injuries, they would only be able to recover 70% of the total damages.

In most states, comparative negligence is more lenient than contributory negligence. It ensures that plaintiffs are not entirely barred from recovery just because they were partially at fault. There are two types of comparative negligence systems: "pure" comparative negligence, where a plaintiff can recover damages regardless of their fault, and "modified" comparative negligence, where a plaintiff can only recover if their fault is less than 50%.

5 - Pre-Existing Condition

In some cases, defendants argue that the plaintiff's injuries were not caused by the incident in question but were instead due to a pre-existing condition. This is particularly common in cases involving personal injury, as many people have ongoing health issues that may not have been aggravated by the event in question.

For instance, if a person has a prior back injury and is involved in a car accident, the defendant may claim that the injuries sustained were a result of the pre-existing condition rather than the accident itself. While this can be a challenging defense to prove, it may reduce the defendant's liability if they can demonstrate that the injuries would have occurred regardless of the incident.

6 - Lack of Causation

Another common defense is lack of causation, where the defendant argues that there is no clear link between their actions and the plaintiff’s injury. This defense focuses on proving that the defendant’s conduct did not cause the injury, or that the injury was too indirect to be attributed to the defendant’s behavior.

For example, in a slip-and-fall case, the defendant might argue that the conditions were not hazardous at the time, or that the plaintiff’s own actions contributed to their fall. Establishing that causation is unclear or absent can weaken the plaintiff's case significantly.

7 - Other Defensive Strategies

There are a variety of other defenses that may be raised depending on the specifics of the case. These might include:

• Acts of God: In some cases, defendants argue that the injury was caused by an unforeseeable natural event, like a severe storm or earthquake, making them not liable for the accident.
• Public Policy Defenses: Some defendants argue that public policy considerations, such as protecting certain industries, should override the plaintiff's claims.
• Governmental Immunity: In certain cases, government entities may claim immunity from lawsuits, shielding them from liability for injuries caused by their actions.

Conclusion

Defendants in personal injury cases often use a variety of legal defenses to reduce their liability or avoid paying damages. Understanding these defenses can help plaintiffs anticipate potential challenges and prepare accordingly. Whether it's proving contributory negligence, demonstrating the assumption of risk, or arguing a lack of causation, defendants have several options at their disposal to defend against personal injury claims.

It's important to consult with an experienced personal injury lawyer who can help navigate these defenses and advocate for your rights. If you're involved in a personal injury case, consider reaching out to Fred Miller Lawyer for expert legal advice and assistance.