The legal team charged with supporting the driver that has been charged with causing a car accident often tries to find evidence of contributory or comparative negligence. In other words, that team seeks proof that the plaintiff exhibited some form of careless or neglectful behavior. Frequently, that defense team looks for evidence that reveals the plaintiff’s failure to wear a seatbelt.
An abundance of facts supports the argument that seat belts save lives. Those devices save lives, because each of them reduces the chance that a driver or passenger might suffer a catastrophic injury. Consequently, a defense lawyer stands on firm ground, if he or she claims that the plaintiff’s failure to wear a seatbelt caused the plaintiff’s injury, as the result of an on-road collision.
Suppose the plaintiff did wear a seatbelt?
What can a defense injury lawyer do if the plaintiff’s statement includes a firm claim that the injured party was wearing a seat belt? In the absence of evidence to support that claim, anyone that hopes to support the defendant would have a rather weak argument. Yet the defendant’s lawyer does have the right to dig out facts from the plaintiff’s medical record.
Indeed, that was once the approach taken by personal injury lawyers in Trenton that worked for a defendant’s insurance company. Those same lawyers then came up with a way to charge one injured driver with contributory negligence. The lawyers’ research revealed the fact that the injured driver had sustained damage to an implanted device, one designed to keep a part of the driver’s body functioning properly.
Armed with that information, the defendant’s lawyers worked to weaken the other party’s case. Their new approach ignored the fact that says that no defendant gets to choose the medical background of his or her plaintiff. Instead, they seized on the evidence that failure to wear a seat belt increases the chances for an injury. The defendant’s lawyers suggested that the plaintiff should have been wearing 2 seatbelts.
Was a medical expert consulted?
No, the legal minds defending the driver responsible for the collision did not want to introduce the views of a medical expert. Sadly, the lawyers hired by the injured driver saw no reason to get a medical opinion during an out-of-court negotiation. Consequently, those same lawyers repeated the to their client the charge made by the defending injury lawyer.
By frightening their client, the 2 men that had failed to consult a medical expert showcased the potential dangers of going to trial. In that way, the same 2 men/lawyers argued for acceptance of the offer from the defendant’s insurance company. Their approach underscores the strength of the seatbelt as a source of contributory evidence.