If the defendant needs to pay for his/her careless and neglectful behavior, than the victim should also pay for any carelessness on his/her part. The states have different ways for forcing the victims to pay for their carelessness.
Some states follow the principle of contributory negligence
According to that principle, no one that has contributed in any way towards creation of an accident or development of an injury should enjoy any compensation for any injuries that might have been sustained in the same accident. In states that operate on that principle, a personal injury lawyer in Edmonton must strive at all times to keep the defense from proving the existence of shared blame.
Other states adhere to the principle of comparative negligence.
There are two types of comparative negligence, and a state has the right to select which type it wants to use.
Pure comparative negligence: That principle uses the level of the victim’s contribution to an accident to determine the size of the same victim’s compensation. The level of the contribution gets expressed as a percentage. So, someone that has contributed to 25% of the factors causing a given accident would receive only 75% of the possible compensation.
Modified comparative negligence: That approach to dealing with shared blame mirrors that of the pure approach, as long as the victim has not contributed to more than 50% of the accident-causing factors. Any victims that might contribute to more than 50% of such factors do not receive any amount of compensation.
Circumstances in which an insurance company might allege shared blame for the victim of an accident
That allegation might be made if the victim were known to have a pre-existing condition. If that condition made the same victim more vulnerable to accidents, an adjuster might allege that he/she should have been wearing a protective device at the time of the accident.
Claimants that might fall victim to such a charge could protect themselves by hiring the right lawyer. That should be someone that has access to medical experts. A medical expert would know whether or not there was any basis for the adjuster’s claims.
The other situation would relate to a collision in which the identity of the responsible party was obvious. Yet, if that responsible party did not have insurance, and the victim had purchased the uninsured motorist option, then the insurance adjuster might contend that the impacted vehicle had not been controlled by the driver, and had done harm to another motorist.
The victim would need to hire a lawyer, in order to challenge the adjuster’s contention. The adjuster should be asked to come forward with evidence that can prove that same contention/allegation. That is how the system should work.