The crux of every lawsuit or settlement demand over an auto accident in Indiana is proving that a specific irresponsible act was the main cause of the injuries suffered by the person filing a claim. However, the evidence available after a car crash can often be inconclusive about how the crash happened, who specifically was “at fault” for it in legal terms, and sometimes even who was actually involved in the incident in the first place.
If a court or an insurance company believes that an injured person is partly to blame for causing their own accident, they may assign that person a percentage of “comparative fault” for their ensuing injuries. Understanding the possible impact of comparative negligence in Merrillville car accident claims by seeking support from a seasoned auto accident attorney could be vital to achieving the best possible result.
What Does State Law Say About Comparative Fault for Car Crashes
Indiana takes what is known as a “modified comparative negligence” approach to comparative fault, both for car accident claims in Merrillville and other types of personal injury cases filed all over the state. In brief, this means that if an injured person trying to sue over a car wreck is found to hold a majority of total fault out of everyone involved, Indiana Code § 34-51-2-6 prohibits that injured person from receiving any civil compensation whatsoever for their injuries.
Conversely, if an injured car crash victim holds 50 percent or less of the total fault for their accident, whatever final settlement or damage award they receive would be reduced in value by their own personal percentage of fault, in accordance with I.C. § 34-51-2-5. So, for instance, a person found to hold 25 percent of the total fault for a wreck would only be able to recover 75 percent of the total damages stemming from that wreck.
Fighting Allegations of Comparative Fault
One very important thing to understand about comparative fault allegations in Merrillville car accident cases is that they are subject to the “preponderance of the evidence” standard of proof established for civil claims. This is in place of the standard in criminal cases, “beyond a reasonable doubt.” In other words, this means it is sometimes possible to contest accusations of this nature made by defendants simply by proving that they are not supported by a majority of the available evidence instead of needing to prove those accusations are absolutely untrue.
For example, suppose a drunk driver rear-ends someone who was checking their phone at a stop light when the light turned green. There may be ample documentary and forensic evidence to prove that the first driver was, in fact, drunk behind the wheel. In contrast, the allegation of comparative fault made against the second driver may be based only on one or two subjective observations. Support from a seasoned legal professional can be essential to building the strongest possible civil claim after a car wreck.
Learn More About Comparative Negligence in Car Accident Claims from a Merrillville Attorney
Even if you know for sure that someone else is the primary person to blame for your recent traffic wreck, you may still have a tricky time holding them entirely at fault for your crash-related losses. In fact, failing to account for comparative negligence in Merrillville car accident claims can sometimes lead to injured people missing out on some or all the compensation to which they otherwise would have been entitled.
Fortunately, you have help available from The Law Offices of David W. Holub. Call today for a consultation.