Your personal injury lawyer will tell you that it’s not necessary to define that negligence exists in a particular personal injury case because the concept of strict liability applies. This article discusses this concept in more detail.
It’s true that you and your personal injury lawyer will need to prove that the defendant acted in a negligent manner if you want to win your personal injury case and win a settlement. But sometimes, you don’t need to do this. If you are filing a personal injury claim or case against a person who ran a red light and t-boned your car in the process, you’ll need to prove that the person was indeed acting in a negligent manner if you want to establish the person’s guilt in your personal injury claim or case.
Personal injury lawyers know about the concept of strict liability. They know that plaintiffs don’t need to prove that negligence occurred in certain types of personal injury claims/cases because the concept of strict liability applies. Under this concept, the defendant is guilty regardless. Of course, you as the plaintiff, could still share some of the faults in these types of cases. If this is the case, then the plaintiff’s final settlement (if he or she receives any money) is reduced by his or her share of the fault.
Strict liability especially applies to dangerous actions
If a person acts in a way or is in situations that are potentially dangerous and/or even deadly, the concept of strict liability will definitely apply. These types of situations include:
● When explosive chemicals are used
● When toxic substances are being transported
If you are hurt in these situations, you and your personal injury lawyer in Gilroy, would definitely be able to use the concept of strict liability to ensure that you won a decent settlement from the defendant. Your personal injury lawyer will tell you that the concept of strict liability applies to certain types of car accidents. This is especially the case if the defendant has (knowingly or unknowingly) violated traffic laws. If you were rear-ended at a stop sign, you could definitely use the concept of strict liability to sue the defendant either in or out of court.
If you bought defective pesticides and ended up getting cancer of the reproductive system as a result, you and your legal team could definitely use the strict liability concept to sue the manufacturer or even the distributor. You would not need to prove that the manufacturer and/or distributor were negligent in this instance.
What happens when you share some of the faults?
If you are the plaintiff and you share some of the faults, then your final settlement would be reduced by your percentage of the fault.
However, strict liability just doesn’t cut it
You’ll need to prove the following in addition to proving that the strict liability concept applied to the defendant:
● The defendant acted in a way that caused you some sort of harm
● And that this harm is the reason why you deserve a financial settlement from the defendant.
Strict liability is straight forward but complex at the same time
As you can see, the concept of strict liability is straight forward but complex at the same time. This is the reason why you need to hire a personal injury lawyer.