Defenses in Car Accident Lawsuits
Most car accident claims hinge on establishing four core elements: the defendant owed a duty of care to drive safely, the defendant breached that duty, the defendant’s breach directly caused the plaintiff’s injuries, and the plaintiff suffered actual damages. A plaintiff usually focuses on proving careless driving behaviors, such as speeding or running a red light, to show a breach of duty. The defendant often builds defenses that may challenge how the plaintiff demonstrates each of these elements, particularly causation and the extent of the damages.
Comparative and Contributory Negligence
Many states use comparative negligence rules to assign fault when more than one driver contributed to a crash. Under pure comparative negligence, used in states such as California and New York, a plaintiff’s financial recovery is reduced by the percentage of fault attributed to them. If a plaintiff is found 30 percent to blame, that plaintiff can still collect 70 percent of the total damages. Other states apply modified comparative negligence. In these jurisdictions, a plaintiff is barred from recovery if their share of fault meets or exceeds a specific threshold, which is generally 50 percent or 51 percent. If a plaintiff is below that threshold, the recovery is reduced according to the percentage of fault.
Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, and Washington, D.C. use the contributory negligence doctrine. In these jurisdictions, a plaintiff who is even one percent responsible for the crash cannot recover compensation. A defendant may focus on finding minimal evidence of fault by the plaintiff to trigger this rule. The last clear chance doctrine can provide a limited exception in contributory negligence jurisdictions by arguing that, despite the plaintiff’s negligence, the defendant was the one who had the final realistic opportunity to avoid the collision and failed to do so.
Arguments Denying Wrongdoing or Causation
A defendant may argue that all reasonable care was taken, asserting that an unavoidable event caused the accident. Under the sudden emergency doctrine, the collision may be excused if a defendant faced an unforeseeable and immediate hazard, such as debris suddenly appearing in the lane or a deer bolting onto the roadway, and responded as any reasonable driver would under the circumstances. A related defense involves disputes about causation, in which a defendant may argue that an intervening event—something that happened after the defendant’s conduct—actually caused the plaintiff’s injuries. Another defense is assumption of risk, which may arise if the plaintiff knowingly and voluntarily encountered a particularly risky situation, such as riding with a driver known to be under the influence.
Defenses That Question the Plaintiff’s Injuries
Even if a defendant acknowledges fault, there may be challenges regarding the nature and extent of the plaintiff’s injuries. A defendant may claim that a pre-existing condition caused the plaintiff’s pain or that the plaintiff’s medical problems stem from a different incident. This strategy seeks to undermine any direct link between the collision and the claimed damages. Another argument is failure to mitigate damages: the defendant asserts that the plaintiff unreasonably delayed or refused necessary treatment, making injuries worse. This can lead to a reduced award if the court finds that the plaintiff’s actions contributed to the severity of harm. In some states, a defendant may present a seat belt defense, arguing that the plaintiff’s failure to wear a seat belt exacerbated injuries. However, several states have laws restricting or prohibiting the admission of this evidence to reduce the plaintiff’s damages.
Procedural Defenses
A defendant may avoid liability by showing that the plaintiff did not meet certain timing or filing requirements. The statute of limitations is the most significant procedural rule. If the plaintiff files a claim after the legally fixed period has passed, the court generally dismisses the case no matter how strong the evidence might be. The relevant deadline varies by state and can differ for personal injury and property damage claims. A defendant may also move to dismiss for failure to state a claim, arguing that the plaintiff’s complaint lacks sufficient allegations to meet all four legal elements of a negligence lawsuit. Some courts allow the plaintiff to amend the complaint, but if it remains inadequate, the case can be dismissed.
