Sentences with phrase «fault of the defendant»

Possible legal theories that can be argued in a products liability case include negligence (lack of reasonable care in the manufacture or sale of the product or in warning about the product), breach of warranty (failure to fulfill the terms of a promise regarding the product's performance), misrepresentation (giving consumers a false sense of security about a product's safety), and strict liability (under which the product's defect, although not the fault of the defendant, rendered the product unreasonably dangerous and the defendant is therefore responsible).

If a man is deemed to be acting involuntarily when causing his own death it is perhaps equally arguable that he does not contribute fault in so acting in a way that has been held to be due to the fault of the defendants.

The judge or jury then apportions liability according to the degree of fault of each defendant pursuant to contributory negligence legislation.

Similarly, the fact that her examination for discovery only took place shortly before the trial does not appear to have been through any fault of the defendant.

Personal injury claims are meant to restore the plaintiff who is a victim of an accident due to the fault of the defendant.

When acting for a defendant in a case that has dragged on (through no fault of the defendant), I am often asked whether we can ask the Court to have the lawsuit dismissed for delay.

Not exact matches

It ensures that a defendant will not be held liable for the plaintiff's injuries where they «may very well be due to factors unconnected to the defendant and not the fault of anyone»: Snell v. Farrell, at p. 327, per Sopinka J.

(2) Exceptionally, a plaintiff may succeed by showing that the defendant's conduct materially contributed to risk of the plaintiff's injury, where (a) the plaintiff has established that her loss would not have occurred «but for» the negligence of two or more tortfeasors, each possibly in fact responsible for the loss; and (b) the plaintiff, through no fault of her own, is unable to show that any one of the possible tortfeasors in fact was the necessary or «but for» cause of her injury, because each can point to one another as the possible «but for» cause of the injury, defeating a finding of causation on a balance of probabilities against anyone.

The court stated that there was nothing to suggest that privilege had been waived by the defendant; confidentiality had been lost through no fault of the company.

Under ordinary personal injury law, an injured person must claim that the defendant should pay for that person's injuries because of some fault on defendant's part.

As such in every case your solicitor should seek to secure from the defendant insurer an early full admission of fault, and if the defendant is seeking to make an allegation of contributory negligence then get them to make it early so that your solicitor can properly gather the evidence to resist the same.

The defendant's percentage of fault may range from 0 to 100 percent.

RCW 4.22.070 (1)(b) provides that you can then collect all damages awarded to you from any defendant found to be partially at fault for the accident, regardless of the percentage of fault attributable to any other defendant.

The Defendant admitted fault for the crash but denied liability to the Plaintiff claiming that the Plaintiff «was not present in the vehicle at the time of the accident ``.

The plaintiff argued that the fact that the he had the right of way and was lawfully in the intersection is enough that the defendant's fault is not a question.

Obviously, to the extent that others are at fault, one particular defendant will not offer you the full value of your case.

So, it doesn't matter that you are out - of - state, it's where the accident occurred and where the defendant or the at fault party is located.

On the basis of this rule, one defendant might seem to be unfairly responsible for paying the judgments of all other defendants who were at fault.

In most cases, the insurance company of the defendant will attempt to prove that you were at least partially at - fault — if not completely at - fault — in the accident.

Ontario's Negligence Act4 (the «Act») makes clear that in the event that more than one tortfeasor causes or contributes and an indivisible injury, the injured party may recover the entirety of their damages from any individual defendant, notwithstanding their respective degree of fault.

The adequately insured defendant would then have to seek contribution from any other negligent defendants based on their respective degrees of fault.

However, in this case the defense team was betting on the 50 % rule, which works like this: if the defense team could convince the jury that the plaintiff (my client, the injured motorcyclist) is more than 50 % at fault for the crash, the defendant (the negligent minivan driver) would not have to pay for non-economic damages, which include pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, scarring and disfigurement, and other long - term problems as a result of the crash.

Because the plaintiff undisputedly had the right of way under these circumstances, his attorney argued that the defendant was entirely at fault as a matter of law.

Wisconsin Joint and Several Liability Cases — Examples in Wisconsin where a defendant, despite being minimally at fault, was responsible for paying close to all of the damages.

Regardless of the fact that you might be able to prove that somebody else caused your accident and resulting damages, your award is likely to be reduced if the defendant can show that part of the fault for the accident was yours.

Thus, if the fault of others, including the plaintiff, is reasonably evaluated to approximate 20 %, then the settling defendant should offer close to 80 % of the plaintiff's damages in settlement.

While the court concluded the plaintiff had not met the test for apportionment, the plaintiff's success in that case on the issue of fault (although no damage was found and the action dismissed) was a relevant factor under Rule 37B (6)(d), now Rule 9 - 1 (5)(b), on considering if the defendant was entitled to double costs when there had been a defence offer, which in Mudry obviously exceeded the damage award which was nil..

The standard position is that the Claimant should pay the Defendant's costs of the application limited to # 250, however, if a court determines that a Defendant is at fault for the Claimant having to needlessly issue the application, then a court will usually make the Defendant pay the legal costs of # 250, plus the court issue fee.

So in a pure uninsured motorist case where the other driver either can not be identified (hit - and - run or phantom vehicle are the most prominent examples) or has no insurance, your own insurance company essentially steps in the shoes of the defendant, assuming the at - fault driver's liability for the accident but also his damages.

Accident attorney Luke Ellis obtained testimony from a number of eyewitnesses which placed the fault 100 % on the defendant driver and discovered that the driver was without a permanent license, having been hired by the trucking company only recently.

If the court finds both the plaintiff and defendant negligent, again depending on location and other factors, the fact finders determine what percentage of fault each party is responsible for.

The Court reasoned that a defendant could not be absolutely certain that his witnesses would testify as expected, and that there was a risk that the other defence witnesses might either collapse under cross-examination or through no fault of their own simply fail to impress the jury.

In the case of manslaughter, for example, when a defendant is charged with recklessly causing the death of another, we will work to show that the death was the victim's fault or that the defendant did not act recklessly.

During the course of this personal injury trial, the at fault driver, the defendant, sought to tender an expert medicolegal report and video deposition of an otolaryngologist (Lawrence v. Parr, 2014 BCSC 2004).

This is true for situations like the present case, where the at - fault party died at the time of the accident, or for times when a defendant dies before a personal injury case is finalized.

Defendant trucking company denied liability; but GJEL Accident Attorney's reconstruction engineer confirmed fault on the part of the defendants.

Remember, that the plaintiff's contributory negligence can diminish the amount of the final compensatory award by the percentage of fault the defendant is assessed.

Therefore, as in other negligence claims, in wrongful death claims, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant is legally at fault for the accident and that the accident was the proximate cause of the injury or death.

There is no rule or principle, applicable to collision cases or analogous types of case in the Admiralty Court, where there is no counterclaim, that a claimant who was at fault under ss 187 (1) and (2) of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 (MSA 1995) should recover its costs in proportion to its liability to the defendant.

In addition, and remarkably (at least to me), the trial judge justify his / her conclusion that apportionment of fault was not permitted by stating that the defendant's counsel had signed the minutes of settlement that let the (by trial) non-party out of action.

Second, the cases did not establish any rule or principle, applicable to collision cases or analogous types of case in the Admiralty Court, where there was no counterclaim, that a claimant who was found at fault under MSA 1995, ss 187 (1) and (2) should recover its costs in proportion to the percentage of liability of the defendant.

The formula postulates that the defendant's fault is a cause of the plaintiff's harm if such harm would not have occurred without (but for) it.12

If he sues another driver for negligence, the defendant may ask the jury to use the doctrine of comparative negligence to reduce any settlement by the percentage of fault attributable to the motorcyclist.

ICBC, on behalf of the Defendant, admitted fault for the accident but disputed the extent of the Plaintiff's injuries.

Finally, an injured party who is seeking recovery from multiple defendants can request the capped amount from each at - fault party, unless the incident resulted in the death of the plaintiff.

Even if the victim was only one percent at fault, that's all it takes to prevent the filing of a wrongful death lawsuit against the liable defendant by surviving family members.

If the defendant knows that they are at fault, they will often try to settle outside of court.

Our attorneys have successfully handled claims against many types of defendants in addition to the at - fault driver.

Unlike criminal cases, the burden is on the plaintiff to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant was at fault for the accident.

While Florida's law is different from that applied in the case, the case is still instructive to Florida personal injury plaintiffs because the division of fault between the plaintiff and the defendant is an issue for the jury to determine.