Proving a Prima Facie Negligence Case—What Is Required to Bring a Successful Claim?

If you

e

e seve

ely hmed in

n

ccident bec

use of

nothe

pe

son’s

eckless

ctions, you m

y h

ve ight to obt

in money fo

you

inju

ies

nd the d

m

ges you sust

ined. Usu

lly, most inju

y lsuits o

cl

ims develop f

om incidents th

t involve

n

ccident

l inju

y.

victim is h

med by

nothe

individu

l’s

ctions o

omissions. Ex

mples include

c csh,

defective p

oduct

ccident, o

slip

nd f

ll incident, just to n

me

fe

. Ho

eve

, befo

e

victim c

n collect money fo

the hu

t

nd d

m

ges they endu

ed, they need to p

ove th

t

nothe

individu

l s

esponsible fo

thei

inju

ies

nd the expenses th

t

esulted. Typic

lly, this is done by sho

ing the

ongful p

ty

cted negligently.

hile p

oving negligence m

y seem like

simple t

sk, th

t’s f f

om the t

uth. Victims often h

ve to p

ove nume

ous leg

l st

nd

ds befo

e

c

se of negligence m

y even be conside

ed.

e’ve p

eped this blog to help you unde

st

nd

h

t

p

im

f

cie c

se of negligence ent

ils. Belo

,

e hope to p

ovide you

ith some info

m

tion you need to knobout negligence c

ses, including

h

t they

e, the p

oof th

t is

equi

ed to b

ing

successful cl

im,

nd ho

n expe

ienced <

h

ef="https:

/c

inju

yvictims.com

“>pe

son

l inju

y lye

> c

n help you obt

in the compens

tion

nd justice you dese

ve.

h

t Ex

ctly Is Negligence?<

h2>
<

h

ef=”https://

.l.co

nell.edu/

ex

negligence” t

get=”_bl

nk"

el=”nofollo

noopene

“>Negligence > is leg

lly defined

s

f

ilu

e to beh

ve

ith

level of ce th

t

e

son

ble pe

son

ould h

ve exe

cised unde

the s

me o

simil ci

cumst

nces.

lthough negligent beh

vio

usu

lly consists of

ctions, it

lso consists of omissions

hen the

e is

duty to

ct.

hen t

ying to figu

e out if

pe

son’s beh

vio

constitutes negligence, you

lye

must p

ove:

• -level=”1″>The
  e s

  n existence of

  leg

  l duty th

  t the ongdoe

  o

  ed the victim (o

  the pl

  intiff)<

  li>

• i
  -level="1">The ongdoe

  b

  e

  ched this leg

  l duty<

  li>

• i
  -level="1">The pl

  intiff suffe

  ed

  n inju

  y

  s

  esult

• i
  -level="1">The

  e is p

  oof th

  t the

  ongdoe

  ’s b

  e

  ch c

  used the pl

  intiff’s hm (often sho

  n th

  ough p

  oxim

  te c

  use)

Ho

Do You Dete

mine if

Leg

l Duty Existed?

Gene

lly, the fi

st step of

negligence c

se is dete

mining if the

e s

n existence of

leg

l duty th

t the ongdoe

o

ed to the pl

intiff.

Usu

lly, people—

nd comp

nies—o

e t

o types of duties:

• -level=”1″> ong>

  speci

  l duty of ce:<

  st

  ong> This duty is often imposed by c

  se l

  o

  st

  tute, o

  the pl

  intiff h

  s justifi

  bly come to

  ely on

  p

  ty’s

  ssumption of th

  t duty. Fo

  inst

  nce, t

  ke the specific Food

  nd D

  ug <

  h

  ef="https:

  /

  .

  ccessd

  t

  .fd

  .gov

  sc

  ipts

  cd

  h

  cfdocs/cfcf

  CF

  Sech.cfm?CF

  P

  t=201&

  mp;sho

  F

  =1" tget="_bl

  nk”

  el="nofollo

  noopene

  ">st

  tute > indic

  ting th

  t d

  ug p

  oducts must h

  ve l

  bels

  ning consume

  s of

  ll the possible side effects the d

  ugs c

  n c

  use.

  hen

  d

  ug m

  nuf

  ctu

  e

  viol

  tes this st

  tute, it could b

  e

  ch its duty of c

  e.

• i
  -level="1">ong>
  genel duty of ce:<

  st

  ong> This duty of ce is

  leg

  l oblig

  tion imposed on

  n individu

  l to conduct themselves in

  m

  nne

  th

  t

  n individu

  l of o

  diny p

  udence

  ould

  ct unde

  the s

  me o

  simil ci

  cumst

  nces. Fo

  ex

  mple, to dete

  mine negligence follo

  ing

  c

  ccident, you

  ould need to figu

  e out

  hethe

  e

  son

  ble pe

  son

  ould h

  ve

  cted the y the ongdoe

  did unde

  the s

  me o

  simil ci

  cumst

  nce.<

  li>

To figu

e out

hethe

the pl

intiff is o

ed

speci

l duty o genel duty of ce, the cou

t

ill often look into the

el

tionship bet

een the

ongdoe

nd the pl

intiff to decide.

Ho

C

n You P

ove Th

t

n Individu

l B

e

ched Thei

Duty of C

e?

Once you c

n dete

mine the

pp

op

i

te duty of c

e, the pl

intiff must then sho

ho

the ongdoe

b

e

ched this duty of c

e o

f

iled to

ct in

cco

d

nce

ith the

pp

op

i

te st

nd

d. Typic

lly, this is est

blished by sho

ing the p

ope

duty of ce

nd ho

the ongdoe

’s

ctions fell sho

t of this specific st

ndd.

hen

cou

t t

ies to dete

mine

hethe

the

e s

b

e

ch of duty of c

e, they fi

st check to see if the ongful pty could fo

esee the

isk of hm to the pl

intiff

nd if they f

iled to stop this h

m f

om occuing. They m

y

lso conside

if othe

options could h

ve p

evented the pl

intiff’s h

m o

inju

ies (such

s

hethe

the ongful pty could h

ve t

ken othections o

used less d

nge

ous m

te

i

ls.) Ho

eve

, the cou

t

ill

lso t

ke into

ccount

hethe

these s

felte

n

tives

e

e fin

nci

lly pl

usible o

v

il

ble fo

the ongdoe

to use o

if they

ould’ve imposed

signific

nt bu

den on thei

beh

lf.

St

ict Li

bility<

h3>
In some specific situ

tions, it c

n be p

esumed the

e

s

b

e

ch of duty of ce b

sed on the existence of ce

t

in elements

nd f

cto

s.

h

t does this me

n ex

ctly? Let’s s

y

st

te h

s st

ict li

bility fobno

m

lly d

nge

ous

ctivities. If

n individu

l is h

med bec

use of this d

nge

ous

ctivity, the

ongful p

ty is p

esumed to h

ve b

e

ched thei

duty of ce

nd c

n be found li

ble fo

the incident.

s

esult, the pl

intiff c

n

ecove

compens

tion fo

thei

inju

ies

nd d

m

ges

ithout h

ving to sho

th

t the ongdoe

b

e

ched thei

duty of ce.

P

oving Th

t the Pl

intiff Suffe

ed

n Inju

y<

h2>
The next step in

negligence c

se is p

oving th

t the pl

intiff suffe

ed

n inju

y. Usu

lly, these inju

ies

ill include bodily hm o

h

m to

e

l o

pe

son

l p

ope

ty. Even though bodily inju

y c

n include vious types of hm, the most common ex

mples of bodily h

m th

t e often cited in

negligence c

se include:

• -level=”1″>He
  d

  nd neck inju

  ies<

  li>

• i
  -level="1"><

  h

  ef="https:

  /c

  inju

  yvictims.comh

  t-is-

  -bin-inju

  y/”>T

  um

  tic bin inju

  ies ><

  li>

• i
  -level="1">Spin

  l co

  d d

  m

  ges<

  li>

• i
  -level="1">Soft tissues inju

  ies

• i
  -level="1">B

  oken o

  fctu

  ed bones

• i
  -level="1">Deep l

  ce

  tions

• i
  -level="1"><

  h

  ef="https:

  /c

  inju

  yvictims.como

  d-

  sh-101/”>Signific

  nt bu

  ns ><

  li>

• i
  -level="1"><

  h

  ef="https:

  /c

  inju

  yvictims.com

  neck-

  nd-b

  ck-inju

  y-settlements

  “>B

  ck inju

  ies ><

  li>

• i
  -level="1">F

  iled o

  del

  yed di

  gnosis<

  li>

• i
  -level="1">Development of

  n unfo

  tun

  te he

  lth condition such

  s

  het

  tt

  ck o

  c

  nce
• i
  -level="1">Post tum

  tic st

  ess diso

  de

  (PTSD)<

  li>

• i
  -level="1">ongful de

  th

P

oving Th

t the B

e

ch of Duty

esulted in the Pl

intiff’s Losses

nd Inju

ies

P

oving th

t

pl

intiff suffe

ed

n inju

y is not enough to sho

th

t the ongdoe

s

esponsible fo

the pl

intiff’s

ccident

nd thei

h

m. To b

ing

successful p

im

f

cie negligence c

se, the pl

intiff

lso needs to est

blish th

t the

ongdoe

’s b

e

ch of duty c

used thei

inju

ies.

The

e e genelly t

o types of c

us

tion th

t need to be

dd

essed in o

de

to p

ove this b

e

ch of duty. They include:

• i
  -level="1">ong>
  ctu

  l c

  use o

  the c

  use-in-f

  ct: ong> The c

  use-in-f

  ct is el

  tively st

  ightfo

  d concept

  nd involves the pl

  intiff sho

  ing th

  t the

  ongdoe

  ’s

  ctions

  e the

  ctu

  l c

  use of thei

  inju

  ies. To est

  blish this

  ctu

  l c

  use, the<

  h

  ef="https:

  /

  .l.co

  nell.edu/

  ex

  but-fo

  _test" tget="_bl

  nk”

  el="nofollo

  noopene

  "> but-fo

  test > is used. Fo

  inst

  nce, if

  moto

  ist n

  stop sign

  nd hit

  moto

  cycle

  nd the moto

  cyclist suffe

  ed b

  in d

  m

  ge, the but-fo

  test

  ould st

  te th

  t “but fo

  the moto

  ist

  unning the stop sign, the moto

  cyclist

  ould not h

  ve suffe

  ed bin d

  m

  ge.”<

  li>

• i
  -level="1">ong>Leg
  l c

  use o

  p

  oxim

  te c

  use: ong> On the othe

  h

  nd, leg

  l o

  p

  oxim

  te c

  use de

  ls

  ith the issue of fo

  esee

  bility

  nd

  hethe

  the pl

  intiff’s inju

  ies

  e

  e

  fo

  esee

  ble

  esult of the ongdoe

  ’s beh

  viond

  ctions. Fo

  ex

  mple, if

  n individu

  l decides to d

  ink

  nd d

  ive

  nd kills

  nothe

  moto

  ist, it could h

  ve been fo

  esee

  ble th

  t

  hen the individu

  l got behind the

  heel

  hile intoxic

  ted, de

  th could h

  ve occu

  ed. Yet, if the d

  unk d

  ive

  hit

  t

  uck c

  ying h

  zdous m

  te

  i

  l

  nd c

  used

  n explosion th

  t inju

  ed

  moto

  ist

  signific

  nt dist

  nce

  y, it’s unlikely th

  t this explosion

  ccident could’ve been

  fo

  esee

  ble consequence of d

  unk d

  iving.

Put mo

e simply,

hen the pl

intiff is t

ying to p

ove p

oxim

te c

use, they need to sho

th

t the

t-f

ult p

ty’s

ctions set in motion el

tively sho

t ch

in of events th

t could’ve been

e

son

bly expected to le

d to thei

h

m

nd d

m

ges.

Collecting D

m

ges—Unde

st

nding

hethe

the Pl

intiff Dese

ves Compens

tion

The fin

l element of

negligence c

se

efe

s to d

m

ges

nd

equi

es the pl

intiff to sho

th

t they suffe

ed signific

nt d

m

ges

nd losses due to the

ongdoe

’s negligence. Typic

lly, these d

m

ges

efe

to compens

tion fo

the pl

intiff’s inju

y, p

ope

ty

ep

i

s, lost ges,

nd medic

l ce.

Diffe

ent Types of D

m

ges

If you c

n est

blish th

t

nothe

individu

l

s

esponsible fo

you

hm bec

use of thei

negligent

ctions, you m

y be entitled to ce

t

in types of compens

tion. In gene

l, this compens

tion includes: Economic o

gene

l d

m

ges: These d

m

ges

efe

to the

ctu

l

nd ve

ifi

ble losses th

t

esult f

om the

ccident

nd c

n include:

• -level=”1″>Medic
  l expenses including p

  st, cu

  ent,

  nd futu

  e medic

  l bills such

  s physici

  n visits, hospit

  l st

  y, su

  ge

  ies,

  nd p

  esc

  iption medic

  tions<

  li>

• i
  -level="1">Lost ges<

  li>

• i
  -level="1">Lost ening c

  p

  city<

  li>

• i
  -level="1">Pe

  son

  l p

  ope

  ty d

  m

  ges<

  li>

• i
  -level="1">

  t-home nu

  sing ce<

  li>

• i
  -level="1">

  eh

  bilit

  tive the

  py such

  s occup

  tion

  l

  nd physic

  l thepy<

  li>

• i
  -level="1">Othe

  out-of-pocket expenses

Non-economic o

speci

l d

m

ges: These d

m

ges often include subjective losses th

t e not e

sy to qu

ntify. They c

n include:

• i
  -level="1"><

  h

  ef="https:

  /c

  inju

  yvictims.com

  c

  –

  ccident-p

  in-

  nd-suffe

  ing/”>P

  in

  nd suffe

  ing<><

  li>

• i
  -level="1"><

  h

  ef="https:

  /c

  inju

  yvictims.com

  c

  –

  ccident-ptsd

  “>Ment

  l

  nguish ><

  li>

• i
  -level="1">Loss of comp

  nionship

• i
  -level="1">Loss of conso

  tium

• i
  -level="1">Loss of enjoyment of life<

  li>

• i
  -level="1">Loss of

  eput

  tion<

  li>

• i
  -level="1">Disfigu

  ement

• i
  -level="1">Sc

  ing

<

h

ef=”https://c

inju

yvictims.com

compens

to

y-

nd-punitive-d

m

ges

“>Punitive d

m

ges >: Unlike the othe

compens

to

y d

m

ges (speci

l

nd gene

l d

m

ges),

hich compens

te the victim fo

thei

losses, punitive d

m

ges punish the

ongful p

ty fo

thei

eg

egious

ctions

nd

im to stop them

nd othe

s f

om committing this

ct

g

in in the futu

e. Yet, in Tex

s, these<

h

ef=”https://st

tutes.c

pitol.tex

s.gov

Docs/CP/htm/CP.41.htm” t

get=”_bl

nk"

el=”nofollo

noopene

“> d

m

ges > e only ded in exception

l c

ses, specific

lly

hen the pl

intiff p

oves

ith cle

nd convincing evidence th

t the h

m c

used by the ongful pty

esulted f

om m

lice, f

ud, o

g

oss negligence

nd not just f

om o

diny negligence o

b

d f

ith.

Diffe

ent Types of Negligence Cl

ims

Unfo

tun

tely, negligence c

ses involve

v

iety of ci

cumst

nces,

ctions,

nd

ccidents. Some of the most common ex

mples of

negligence cl

im usu

lly

efe

to:

• -level=”1″>Moto
  vehicle cshes<

  li>

• i
  -level="1">T

  uck

  ccidents<

  li>

• i
  -level="1">Moto

  cycle collisions

• i
  -level="1">

  o

  kpl

  ce

  ccidents<

  li>

• i
  -level="1">Defective p

  oduct

  ccidents<

  li>

• i
  -level="1">Medic

  l m

  lpctice incidents<

  li>

• i
  -level="1">P

  emises li

  bility

  ccidents

• i
  -level="1">Elde

  neglect

If you

e

e h

med in

n

ccident, it c

n be difficult to dete

mine if you

inju

ies

esulted f

om

nothe

pe

son’s negligence. Fo

tun

tely,

hen you

o

k

ith

n expe

ienced pe

son

l inju

y

tto

ney, you do not h

ve to figu

e this out you

self. These lye

s c

n p

omptly get to

o

k dete

mining

h

t h

ppened,

ho s

t f

ult,

nd

hethe

you h

ve

vi

ble negligence c

se.

Do You Need

Pe

son

l Inju

y

tto

ney Helping You

ith You

Negligence Cl

im?<

h2>
To b

ing

successful negligence cl

im, not only do you need to h

ve

tho

ough unde

st

nding of the specific negligence l

s, but it is

lso

equi

ed th

t you p

ovide sound leg

l

guments

nd evidence est

blishing the diffe

ent negligence elements. Consequently, this

hole p

ocess c

n be complic

ted

nd tedious

ithout

n expe

ienced pe

son

l inju

y l

ye

on you

side. Ho

eve

,

hen you

o

k

ith

t

usted

nd kno

ledge

ble inju

y

tto

ney, you do not h

ve to t

ckle this complex leg

l b

ttle on you

o

n.

n inju

y

ccident lye

c

n h

ndle these ch

llenging negligence cl

ims fo

you

hile

lso:

• -level=”1″>Offe
  ing you the

  dvice you need, ev

  lu

  te you

  potenti

  l cl

  ims,

  nd go ove

  the leg

  l options you c

  n pu

  sue.

• i
  -level="1">Discussing

  ll of you

  conce

  ns

  nd questions

  nd p

  ovide you

  ith the suppo

  t you need.<

  li>

• i
  -level="1">Investig

  ting the incident tho

  oughly

  nd building the st

  ongest possible cl

  im by obt

  ining the evidence

  equi

  ed to sho

  f

  ult

  nd d

  m

  ges.

• i
  -level="1">M

  n

  ging

  ll the negoti

  tions

  nd discussions

  ith the othe

  side

  nd the insunce comp

  ny,

  nd pu

  suing just compens

  tion on you

  beh

  lf.<

  li>

• i
  -level="1">B

  inging in expe

  ts such

  s economists, docto

  s, enginee

  s,

  nd

  ccident

  econst

  uctionists to b

  ck up you

  cl

  ims.<

  li>

• i
  -level="1">T

  king you

  c

  se to t

  i

  l if the othe

  side is un

  illing to negoti

  te

  f

  i

  settlement

  nd

  o

  k

  elentlessly to b

  ing

  successful

  esolution to you

  cl

  im.<

  li>

If you o

f

mily membe

suffe

ed se

ious inju

ies bec

use of

nothe

pe

son’s negligent

ctions, do not

it to get the leg

l suppo

t you need. Cont

ct

n expe

ienced pe

son

l inju

y l

ye

tod

y fo

f

ee c

se consultation.