Owing to the huge numbers of drivers on the road, and to the fact that different states have different rules, certain accidents expose the legal issues that get linked to similar incidents.
Legal questions arise when more than one person has caused a given accident.
The person responsible does not have to be a driver. It could be a pedestrian or someone riding a bicycle, or a motorcycle. In order to prove fault, the law demands the existence of 3 essential elements:
1) The responsible party had a duty of care towards the victim
2) The responsible party breached that duty
3) That same breach caused the plaintiff to become injured.
The evidence could show that the injured victim was partly responsible for the accident’s occurrence. That would introduce the problems associated with the different rules in different states.
What are the possible consequences for a victim that has been found partly to blame for a given accident?
The victim’s compensation could be determined by the principle known as pure comparative fault. According to that principle whatever the percentage of the victim’s part in causing the accident, the same percentage should get taken from the victim’s compensation package.
Some victims find that their compensation gets reduced according to the principle of modified comparative negligence. In that case, anyone that has contributed to more than 50% of the factors that caused a given accident does not receive any compensation. Those that contributed less get compensated, according to the rules for pure comparative fault as per personal injury lawyer in Davis.
An older rule applies the principle of contributory negligence. That rules out the practice of compensating a victim, if the victimized individual has contributed, in any degree, to an accident’s occurrence.
Practice in a no-fault state
Where a state’s laws apply the no-fault system, a driver that has been hit by another motorist seeks coverage for damages from that same driver’s own insurance company. In a fault state, car owners must add uninsured motorist coverage to their policy, if they want to enjoy the protection provided in a no-fault system.
History behind no-fault insurance
Before policyholders enjoyed the option of adding such coverage to an auto insurance policy, drivers that got rear-ended by an uninsured motorist found it difficult to obtain the money that they deserved. Some of them sued their insurance company. That practice pushed insurers to advocate for introduction of a better system. Consequently, some states have a no-fault system. In others the insurance companies let policyholders purchase the optional uninsured motorist coverage.
Both approaches have reduced the number of lawsuits against insurers. At the same time, both approaches have made it easier for innocent victims to get compensated, after being injured by an uninsured motorist.