Personal injuries can be devastating. Not only do you have to suffer the therapies and procedures required to overcome your injury, but you’re also stuck with the bill. If the injury was caused by someone else’s negligence, then it is only natural to seek compensation for your injuries. However, many victims of personal injury cases forget that the defense will have their own persuasive argument to ensure that they receive little to no compensation.
San Francisco is a “pure comparative negligence state” which enables California courts to reduce your total possible compensation based on how much you are at fault for the accident. That’s right – one of the most common defenses for personal injury cases is to turn the blame on you.
If the defense can prove that you are partially at fault for the personal injury, the courts will reduce your compensation by the percentage amount that the fault is determined. Aside from the fact that they can place partial blame on you, how exactly do they go about doing it? Depending on the type of accident, the defense will try to place blame by proving that you were also negligent at the time of the accident. This can mean that you were also not looking at the road before the car accident, or you ran in an area where the defendant warned you not to. Either way, this defense can be effective if you and your personal injury lawyer don’t take steps to provide a convincing counter. Another way the defense argues for reduced compensation is that the cause of your accident had an “assumption of risk.” In other words, your engagement in the activity came with risks. You will need to convey that your participation in an activity did not directly relate to the accident. In any personal injury case, the defenses’ arguments can be extensive. With the help of a personal injury lawyer in San Francisco, you can prevent the defense from ruining your compensation.