Personal injury lawyers keep one fact foremost in their minds, when deciding whether or not to take on a potential client’s case. That one fact is this: If there is no proof of negligence, then there is no case.
What questions must be answered, in order to establish proof of negligence?
Did the other party have a duty of care towards the claimant/victim? Had the other party been expected to keep that individual safe from harm?
Did the other party breach his or her duty of care? What was the nature of that breach? Was the other party expected to carry-out a specific action, one that he or she neglected to perform? For instance, a baby sitter is expected to keep an eye on the child/children in his or her care. A negligent sitter might allow such a child to get lost or kidnapped.
Alternatively, was the other party expected to refrain from taking a specific action? What happened when the other party’s actions included performance of the act that should have been avoided? For instance, was a driver speeding through a stop sign at the same time that another driver was entering the same intersection, causing the occurrence of a car crash?
What can happen if a personal injury lawyer accepts a client’s case without seeking answers to the questions mentioned above?
If an Accident Lawyer in Cambridge were to make such a foolish decision, then he or she might remain oblivious of the fact that the client has filed a claim against the wrong person. The client has blamed the wrong party for the losses that he or she suffered on the day of a given accident.
Suppose, for example, that a personal injury lawyer accepted a case from a driver that claimed to have suffered bot an injury and damage to his vehicle, when another driver hit him from the rear. That sounded like a foolproof case, because the driver that rear ends a motored vehicle normally gets held responsible for any damages.
In this case, though, the other party’s insurance discovers that the damage on the car belonging to the allegedly guilty driver was on the side, near the front. Yet there was no damage to the vehicle’s front section. Such damage does not match with the events that take place during a rear-end collision.
Here is what happened: The driver that hired an attorney backed into the side of the other party’s vehicle. That driver had failed to look, before backing up, while at a curb. The other party was attempting to back into a parking space at the curb. Time got wasted, and the limitation period expired before the attorney uncovered any evidence of negligence.