What Does Self Representation Involve In A Negligence Claim?
Accident victims have the option of being their own legal representative when looking to file a negligence claim against an errant motorist. Because the average driver (or any other accident victim) is not likely to be a legal professional, those considering self-representation should brush up on their knowledge of the law in relation to negligence claims for higher chances of a successful claim.
With this in mind, here is a discussion on the various elements of a negligence claim that will those considering self-representation of what to expect.
The Concept Of Duty And The Breach Thereof
All motorists have a legal duty to care for the well-being of fellow motorists and the well-being of other road users (pedestrians, cyclists, etc.). For a successful claim, the injured victim will need to provide proof (beyond reasonable doubt) that the accident was caused by failure to uphold the legal care of duty on the part of the errant motorist.
Failure to uphold the legal care of duty often results from acts of commission or omission. Acts of commission refer to actions of the errant motorist that had a direct contribution in compromising the legal care of duty to other road users. Acts of omission refer to situations in which an errant motorist fails to take action required to uphold the legal duty of care to other road users.
For a successful claim, injury victims representing themselves will need to prove that an average person in the position of the errant would have known that their acts of commission or omission could cause an accident. As such, the person would have taken a different cause of action than that which the errant motorist took at the time at the accident.
The Concept Of Causation
Personal injury cases that involve negligence claims will also require the self-representing accident victim to prove the relationship between the errant driver's act(s) of negligence and the cause of the victim's accident-related injuries. For example, a drunk driver would not be considered to have acted negligently if (s) he smashes into the victim's vehicle due to a failure in the automobile's breaking system. In as much as such a driver may be guilty of driving under the influence, (s) he can only be deemed to have been negligent if the victim can prove that the cause of the accident is directly related to fact that the driver was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the accident.