Dedicated To Helping Injured People

Dedicated To Helping Injured

Exterior of Office Building of The Gaar Law Firm | Trail Attorneys

Proving negligence following motor vehicle accidents

On Behalf of | Nov 22, 2019 | motor vehicle accidents

When involved in a car accident that is another person’s fault, wanting to establish negligence is understandable. Proving negligence following motor vehicle accidents in Louisiana is not always the easiest of things to do. Certain elements have to exist in a case in order to establish negligence. Those elements will be the focus this week.

Element number one: duty. The driver believed responsible must have had a duty to exercise care while behind the wheel. This is something every driver has, so it is easy to establish.

Element number two: breach of duty. When an accident results because a driver failed to exercise care, this is considered a breach of duty. He or she failed to meet his or her duty.

Element numbers three and four: cause in fact and proximate cause. To establish cause in fact, the victim has to show that he or she would not have experienced an injury if it were not for the other party’s actions. To establish proximate cause, the victim has to provide evidence that the other party’s actions were the direct cause of any injuries suffered in the wreck.

Element number four: damages. To seek damages, one must have experienced damages. This means the victim must have suffered some sort of loss because of the accident. The injury could be physical, financial or emotional in nature.

In Louisiana, comparative negligence is also considered when determining liability following motor vehicle accidents. This means that the actions of all drivers, even the victim, will be considered. If the victim is thought even partially at fault, this could lower the amount he or she is ultimately awarded in damages. Victims of auto accidents can turn to legal counsel for assistance, seeking maximum relief for their losses. One’s attorney will do everything possible to establish the required elements of negligence against the responsible party while at the same time fighting any claims of comparative negligence.