Three Ways a Personal Injury Case is Defended – Austin Personal Injury Lawyers
Common Arguments Used by the Defense to Lower the Value of Your Claim
There are a number of different ways that a defendant can attempt to limit the success of your lawsuit, and these are called defenses. Our Law Office has dealt with hundreds of cases and our attorneys have identified some of the common ways that a case can be defended. Please visit this site @ https://fordandlaurel.com/
What Are the Common Ways a Case is Defended?
When you file suit against someone, you are known as the plaintiff and the person you are filing suit against is known as the defendant. The plaintiff has what is called the burden of proof, which means that they are responsible for proving the case. Naturally, since you are trying to accuse the defendant of doing something that is wrong, they go on the defensive. There are three main ways that our attorneys have identified that a defendant can use to defend a case: 1) the plaintiff fails on his own merits, 2) Ordinary defenses, and 3) Affirmative defenses.
The Plaintiff Can Fail on His Own Merits
The plaintiff has the burden of proof to show that the defendant is guilty of whatever the plaintiff is accusing them of. For example, if you got into a car accident and the defendant caused the crash you would be suing him in a negligence cause of action. Therefore, as the plaintiff you would have the burden of proof to establish that defendant was negligent.
In order to do this you would have to present evidence that convince a jury, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the defendant was guilty of negligence. A preponderance of the evidence means that the jury must find, based on the evidence that it was more likely than not that the defendant was negligent.
However, many times a plaintiff is not able to present the facts and evidence in the best way possible to prove his case without the assistance of legal counsel and therefore fails in his case on its own merits. Other times, a plaintiff might have a good case and hire an attorney who is inexperienced and is not able to prevail in the case despite the good evidence and facts present in the case.
Ordinary defenses or reactionary defenses are used by a defendant and basically shoot down the plaintiff’s arguments. For example, the plaintiff will make a legal argument about the defendant’s negligence and the defendant will poke holes in the argument so that the jury will not believe the plaintiff’s side of the story.
There are different ways that ordinary defenses can be used such as with rebuttal evidence. Rebuttal evidence is evidence that is used to rebut an assertion that the plaintiff has made about the defendant. For example, if the plaintiff claims that the defendant ran a red light and collided with him, rebuttal evidence could be eyewitness testimony that states that the light was green and not red when the defendant crossed the street. More here @ https://caraccidentattorneysa.com/car-accident-lawyers-san-antonio/
Another defense that is commonly used by defendants is what is called an affirmative defense. An affirmative defense is made by a defendant and affirms that part of the plaintiff’s claim is true, but offers other evidence that shows that the defendant was not liable to the defendant.
For example, if the defendant crashed into the back of the plaintiff’s car he could use the affirmative defense of contributory negligence by arguing that although he did crash into the plaintiff’s car but he only did so because the plaintiff’s brake lights were broken and he could not tell that the plaintiff’s car was slowing down. Therefore, he is not liable to the plaintiff because the plaintiff was contributorily negligent in the crash.
You Need an Experienced Attorney to Help You Overcome These Defenses
Although the three main types of defenses have been generally explained in this article, there are still a large number of ways these defenses can be used against you in a case. One of the biggest mistakes you can make when dealing with a lawsuit is not hiring an attorney or hiring one that is not experienced enough to anticipate and overcome the defenses used by a defendant.