The Concept That Could Support A Charge of Fault

In most personal injury cases, the plaintiff bases any charge of fault on the concept of negligence. Plaintiffs usually allege that the defendant was careless and neglectful.

Specific features of the defendant’s negligence

The defendant had not acted in a reasonable manner, under the circumstances. That could mean that he or she had carried out some unreasonable action. Alternately, it could mean that he or she had failed to act in the expected fashion at that point in time.

The circumstances surrounding the defendant’s careless and neglectful behavior should have been those that matched with the nature of his or her duties, at that particular time. Those duties should have demonstrated the existence of a certain level of care.

The defendant’s careless and neglectful acts must have resulted in a breach of the administered care.

Plaintiffs must produce evidence that the other party did indeed breach a duty of care.

-A ticket that showed violation of a traffic law could serve as such evidence

-An eyewitness account might provide a plaintiff with useful evidence.

-Some evidentiary material from the accident site might support an allegation, regarding the required breach of duty. For instance, tire marks at the scene of a collision might show that the other driver was speeding, during the moments before the collision.

Personal injury lawyer in Barrie knows that sometimes a physician might be charged with fault, after a patient gets harmed during the administration of a medical procedure. In that case, testimony from a medical expert could be used to support a charge that the doctor had breached his or her duty of care.

How would the creation of damages play a role in a demonstration of negligence?

The plaintiff would need to show proof of a link between the defendant’s actions and the resulting damages. In cases where plaintiffs have been injured, a doctor’s report might serve as proof that such a link existed. In the area of personal injury law, an injury qualifies as damage.

In a case where a theft had represented the damage, the plaintiff might search for video footage. There might have been a video camera targeted on the spot where the theft took place. Still, the plaintiff’s allegations would be stronger, if the plaintiff had taken a picture of the stolen good, before the time of the reported incident.

Photographs of a plaintiff’s possessions could work to satisfy another required proof of negligence. That would be proof of the fact that the plaintiff had suffered a measurable loss. A picture should indicate the value of a stolen piece of property. Thus, plaintiffs’ proofs of damage do not always support charges of negligence. Any such proof would need to be linked to proof of the lost item’s value.