Most of our readers probably know that if they make an allegation that another party’s actions led to their injuries in a car accident, they must be able to prove that the party did in fact “cause” the accident and injury to occur. In a civil lawsuit, the burden is on the plaintiff to prove the elements of the case.
But, the term “cause” can come under quite a bit of scrutiny in a personal injury lawsuit. It is usually the most critical and controversial part of a car accident lawsuit. After all, there could be many different causes that led to an accident – how can a plaintiff prove that a defendant caused the accident and injuries to a sufficient extent to meet the burden of proof in a civil case?
It oftentimes comes down the more exact term “proximate cause.” This term refers to an act or omission that, but for it occurring, the injury in question would not have occurred. For example, if the defendant’s car had not run through a red light – striking another vehicle and injuring the occupants inside – the injuries would not have occurred. And, when a person runs a red light, it is foreseeable that vehicles would be moving freely in the opposite direction under a green light and that a collision could and probably will occur.
Facts might not be so simple
In a car accident case, the facts oftentimes seem to be black and white to injured plaintiffs. But, defendants won’t give up so easily. If they can make an issue of causation in the case, they will. One way defendants do that is to argue that, no matter what happened, the defendant’s actions weren’t actually the proximate cause of the injuries. If this looks like it might become an issue in your personal injury claim, be sure to have the right arguments and persuasive statements ready to back up your claim.