The legal system allows the victim of a personal injury to sue for compensation. Still, that same victim must show that the allegedly responsible person was negligent. Other wise, the court will not file the submitted claim.
The plaintiff’s need to show negligence carries the same significance as the need to satisfy the statute of limitations.
The court acknowledges satisfaction of both demands. It does that by agreeing to file the submitted claim.
On the other hand, the court places a penalty on any claimant that fails to satisfy either or those 2 demands. It does that by refusing to schedule a discovery session and a trial for the plaintiff that has sought to present his or her case to a judge and jury.
What 4 elements must be found in an effort to prove that the other party was negligent?
The element of duty: The defendant had a duty to show the defendant a reasonable level of care.
An effort by the defendant to breach that duty of care: The breach could take the form of a careless action or the failure to act. The breach must demonstrate a deviance on the defendant’s part from what others would view as a reasonable and prudent act.
The element of causation: This is the most important of the 4 essential elements. The evidence must support the claim that the defendant’s actions caused the plaintiff’s injury. Plaintiffs should understand how the court judges the existing evidence.
The court studies the evidence, in order to see if the defendant could have foreseen the consequences of his or her actions, or of his or her failure to take a reasonable action. If a defendant had no way of foreseeing those consequences, then the court will not acknowledge the presence of the 3rd element of negligence.
The element described as damages: The presence of this element can be shown if the plaintiff was injured or harmed, and the court had the ability to compensate the plaintiff. Moreover, the compensation ordered by the court must be a fair one.
Suppose, for example, that a driver was rear-ended by an uninsured motorist. Suppose, too that the same driver had failed to buy an uninsured motorist option. If that were the case, then the last of the 4 needed elements would be missing.
True, the defendant did have and breach a duty of care. True, that breach did cause the plaintiff to be injured. However, the court lacked the ability to award a fair compensation.
The responsible driver did not have any valuable assets. Due to the obvious absence of any monetary resources, on the part of the defendant, the court could not obtain the desired, compensatory funds.