The evidence that relates to a car accident case needs to supply information that can help with answering at least one of 2 questions. Here are those questions: How did it happen? How was the victim affected?
The collected evidence must substantiate certain proofs.
Proof of who was at-fault: The police report contains information that should help to confirm that particular proof.
Proof that the plaintiff suffered injuries and other damages: The collection of medical bills and medical records should work to establish that specific proof.
Claims that need to be substantiated, through an examination of the collected evidence
The plaintiff’s claims, regarding his or her version of the events that took place during the moments just before the accident, require substantiation. The collected evidence should support the plaintiff’s claims, regarding any sustained injuries.
Approaches used for examining evidence
An analysis of the contact information, which was shared by the involved drivers, could prove useful. It should reveal whether or not any of the same drivers were following an employer’s instructions, by taking the wheel of a specific vehicle. Two tools that get used during such an examination become available to Personal Injury Lawyers in Barrie on both sides at the time of the discovery session. Those tools are the deposition and the interrogatories.
During the deposition, both lawyers enjoy an opportunity to seek testimony from specific witnesses. The plaintiff and the defendant are usually 2 of the selected witnesses. At the deposition, witnesses must respond orally to stated questions. The interrogatories supplement the facts obtained during the deposition. The interrogatories are written questions that selected individuals need to answer. The answers given in the interrogatories might be compared with the oral response to a question that was raised during the deposition.
In addition, both tools (the depositions and the interrogatories) help to provide the lawyers with ideas for questions that might be asked during an upcoming trial. For example, a witness’ answers, during utilization of one tool, might not match with the answer to a similar question in a different tool. If that were the case, then the opposing attorney would probably repeat in the courtroom one or more of the questions that had been asked during the discovery session. Having taken that action, the same attorney would wait to see how the questioned party chose to answer the query that had been posed.
Hence, one attorney would be able to alert the jury to any discrepancies that had existed in a given witness’ answers. As a result, the jurors might feel inclined to question the veracity of the witness’ answers. In other words, the evidentiary material had been examined artfully in the courtroom, before the jurors’ eyes.