Sometimes the actions of more than one driver contribute to creation of a situation that triggers a motor vehicle accident. That sort of issue can raise questions about who should be named the at-fault driver. Should one of the drivers be charged with comparative negligence?
What is comparative negligence?
That is a legal charge. It alleges that the other party carried out some action that played a part in creating the situation that triggered a given accident. It can also be used to claim that a plaintiff aggravated an injury by behaving in a negligent manner.
For instance, the insurance company always looks for evidence that a claimant was not wearing a seat belt at the time of a collision. Such evidence can become the basis for a charge of comparative negligence. The absence of the seat belt would have put the plaintiff at greater risk for injuries.
The insurance company might study the police report, to see if it mentions whether or not the claimant was wearing a seat belt. An insurance company might also study the region’s traffic laws, to see if the claimant broke any law during the moments that preceded the collision.
What the type of accident might say about who should be named the at-fault driver?
Some accidents make it rather obvious that one of the involved drivers was less careful than the others. For instance, a rear-end collision shows that one motorist failed to put on the brakes at the appropriate time. That is definitely an example of carelessness and neglect. Hence, drivers that hit the rear end of a vehicle are generally considered negligent, by a personal injury lawyer in Lethbridge.
By the same token, if an accident takes place while someone is making a left turn, the driver that tried to make the turn is usually considered to be the one at-fault. Drivers are not supposed to make a left turn, when it is clear that another vehicle is approaching the intersection. Consequently, an attempt to turn anyway, regardless of the other driver’s intentions, qualifies as negligent behavior.
By the same token, an insurance company understands what sort of damage should result from commission of a certain type of driving behavior. If a car gets hit from the side, the driver of the impacted vehicle cannot be charged as the one at-fault. How could a driver maneuver in a way that would cause a side impact to occur?
That question gets asked by an insurance company if a claimant’s vehicle has been damaged on the side. The answer to that question would indicate that the other driver was most apt to be the one at-fault. That fact would cast doubt on any claim that the hit driver caused the collision.