A motorist that has been injured in a trucking accident should not hesitate to retain a personal injury lawyer in Waterdown. The lawyer’s experience would aid discovery of the liable parties. Each of those same parties could be asked to pay for a part of the damages.
Had the driver been working for a trucking company?
If that were found to be the case, then the motorist’s lawyer could pursue a claim against that same trucking company. Naturally, that would mean speaking with the adjuster at the insurance company for that same trucking company.
An attorney could learn who has paid for damage to the truck.
That would indicate who should be held liable for any injuries to the motorist.
A listing of all those that paid for the truck-related damages could include the following:
—The driver’s employer
—The shipping company
—Perhaps a leasing company
—The maker of a defective part
—A government agency, if some road sign had been missing, or had remained unlighted at night
If the motorist had become disabled, then the motorist’s lawyer should acquire proof of how the disabled client had struggled with that liability.
The opposing party or parties might require certain evidence, in order to offer proof of the consequences from a given disability.
The motorist’s attorney could deal with any challenges, such as an allegation that the motorist had failed to mitigate the effect of the accident-linked injury.
A state’s laws might reinforce the value in retention of some member of the legal community.
Some states operate on the principle of contributory negligence. Under that principle, anyone that is partly to blame for a given accident has no right to seek compensation for any accident-linked injuries.
If a trucking accident had taken place in such a state, then, none of the involved motorists would want to be identified as one of the partially responsible parties. A motorist that had hired a lawyer would have less reason to worry about the liability issues, as related to the truck-auto accident.
Suppose the trucking accident had taken place in a state that adhered to the principle of comparative negligence. Would the motorist still need an attorney?
Yes, the evidence uncovered by an attorney could be used to argue that the motorist deserved a larger percentage of the compensation. Moreover, the state might follow the practice of modified contributory negligence. That would mean that the motorist could not be held responsible for more than 50% of the factors that caused the accident.
An attorney could seek evidence in support of that fact. That would allow the motorist, the attorney’s client to receive at least some percent of the available compensation.