The Blame Game: How an Vehicle Accident Lawyer Determines Fault
Road disasters are not only known for property breakage and traumas, but also for the question "who is at fault?". The driver who collided with the other vehicle is usually considered accountable for the accident. However, the nature of the mishap and the accounts from both parties may produce a result different from the standard. In other words, determining the blame is not always easy.
Police thoroughly review the scene of the collision to supply exact information of what actually occurred. Some cases of car collisions appear direct and clear, but there are also accidents that are unclear in plain sight. In addition, both the victim and the one at fault may be accountable for a car accident. In this case, the court divides the accountability to both parties based on the result of the investigation.
Negligence is a common issue when it concerns car accidents, as every driver on the road has a obligation to exercise caution. Though the one at fault had no desire of ramming the victim's car, he can still be held accountable for neglecting to practice safe driving techniques. The legal system in the United States specifies and follows either of two classifications of negligence in determining who is at fault.
Contributory: The auto accident attorney Salt Lake City has to offer says the victim in a car accident is not entitled to win back losses if he is partly at fault. Assuming that this is the case, then a state makes use of the contributory negligence theory to settle claims in court. It is still being used in a number of states, besides Utah. It may seem unfair, but, as mentioned previously, a driver has the duty to exercise caution in driving.
Comparative: The comparative negligence theory is a less rigid concept and is commonly used in most states. If both parties are accountable for the mishap, the court determines the gravity of each side's accountability based on statements and formal reports. The auto accident attorney Utah residents seek advice from says an injured party's recovery claims can be cut by 20 percent if the party is 20 percent liable.
However, there are restrictions to the comparative negligence theory. The plaintiff that is 50 percent liable or more is not qualified to claim recovery assets as it appears that he is largely at fault. The Utah auto accident attorney says that, in some states, the plaintiff's damages can be lowered if he is partly to blame for his own traumas.
Published by Paxton on January 3rd 2012 | Business
Published by on November 28th 2011 | Business
Published by on November 25th 2011 | Business
Published by Car Donation24 on July 13th 2012 | Business
Published by Mchenry1 on December 30th 2011 | Business
Published by Auto Insurances on January 14th 2012 | Business
Published by on April 4th 2012 | Business
Published by Jennifer Weinstein on January 6th 2012 | Business
Published by Safinajones on December 22nd 2011 | Business
Published by Auto Insurances on January 16th 2012 | Business
Published by Adli Law on April 5th 2012 | Business
Published by Larry Ellison on January 5th 2012 | Business
Published by Safinajones on February 29th 2012 | Business
Published by Marie Flair on July 13th 2012 | Business
Published by Mike Stover on December 29th 2011 | Business
Published by Mchenry1 on January 31st 2012 | Business
Published by Aidan Margas on November 25th 2011 | Business
Published by Adam Smithy on July 12th 2012 | Business
Published by Malavesean on July 2nd 2012 | Business
Published by Mchenry1 on March 21st 2012 | Business