Defense lawyers have learned that certain arguments work best when used to fight a particular claim. For instance a claim that an injury resulted from the presence of a hazard on a private or public property often pushes the defendant’s attorney to argue that the plaintiff contributed to the accident. If the accident happened to qualify as a slip and fall incident, then the attorney might seek more information about the plaintiff’s shoes at the time of the same incident.
Some other types of personal injuries elicit a rather standard argument from the defendant’s lawyer. Any claim made by an injured accident victim could be questioned in court by pointing out a failure to follow a certain legal guideline. Details on each of those arguments have been shared with the readers of this article.
The argument that focuses on risks
Society acknowledges that fact that certain activities expose the participant to a recognized and high level of risk. Personal Injury Lawyer in Stouffville can made use of that fact, when trying to defend a facility at which some lover of sports got injured. The lawyer’s argument will focus on the fact that the defendant assumed a certain amount of risk, simply by choosing to take part in whatever activity was pursued by others at the same facility.
Arguments that focus on legal points
In some cases, the lawyer’s principal argument highlights the extent to which the plaintiff has failed to satisfy the legal requirements. For example, the attorney might seek to show that the plaintiff’s claim lacked proof of negligence on the part of the defendant. There need to be four elements in a negligence claim.
The element that most often gets used by a defense attorney relates to the time when the plaintiff got injured. Has proof be given that whatever took place at that moment actually caused the plaintiff’s injury? If that proof has not been presented, the jury might well get swayed by the points brought forward by the defendant’s lawyer.
The law forces anyone that intends to initiate a lawsuit to meet certain deadlines. A plaintiff that fails to meet such a deadline cannot expect to have a winning case. The defendant’s lawyer will almost certainly let the jury know about that failure. Each jurist would know that the judge could not allow a charge to be placed against the defendant, if the plaintiff had indeed failed to meet a given deadline.
Arguing for defendant by pointing out weakness in plaintiff’s claim
If an injured accident victim fails to mitigate the consequences of an injury, then that failure can weaken the plaintiff’s claim. If the injured victim had neglected to seek medical help soon after the accident, then that could be used as an example of the victim’s failure to mitigate any possible consequences. In other words, a defense attorney could focus on that delayed action and thus weaken the plaintiff’s case.
Obviously, a plaintiff has less chance for winning a weakened case. Hence, a lawyer’s ability to argue on a vital point can make a defense stronger. By bolstering the defendant’s case, the defense lawyer makes it harder for the plaintiff to enjoy a victory.