Negligence Lawyer in San Jose, CA
The simplest meaning of negligence as applied to the law is any conduct that puts someone at an unreasonable risk of harm. To prove a successful negligence lawsuit in California, the harm that occurred must have been solely a result of the negligent party not performing their 'duty of care'. The San Jose, CA negligence lawyers at Dash Injury Law Firm can help you understand this type of case and help you hold the responsible parties liable.
Who is Involved in a San Jose, CA Negligence Lawsuit?
Lawsuits alleging negligence are typically filed by someone claiming they were owed a level of care by someone who had a duty to act according to a standard. That standard is how a reasonable person would have acted under similar circumstances.
The “injured party” is claiming the “negligent party” who harmed him/her breached or violated a duty owed to the injured party. For example, when you go to a doctor for a medical procedure, you have a right to expect that a standard of care will be met. If the procedure does not produce the expected outcome, it does not mean the doctor violated the standard.
But if the doctor does not conform to the standard recognized by the medical field, and if you are injured as a result, it is quite possible the doctor was negligent. It may then be necessary for you to seek the advice of a negligence lawyer in San Jose, CA.
It is noteworthy to realize that any person or entity can be negligent. In society, we all owe duties to each other. Breaching those duties and causing someone harm can make the negligent person or entity liable for the damages caused.
Defense For Negligence Lawsuit in San Jose, CA
Imagine for a moment that you are at the local Safeway or Whole Foods Market and slip on some spilled liquid. You fall and your ACL is ruptured. Surgery is required to repair your ACL and although you make a claim with the store’s risk management, it is denied because they claim you were not paying attention to your surroundings.
The store may claim one or more defenses to your negligence claim, such as:
- Comparative negligence
- Contributory negligence
- Assumption of risk
A comparative negligence defense holds that the injured party and the negligent party share responsibility for the damages incurred. Courts will subtract the injured party’s percentage of negligence from the compensation award.
If the negligent party claims the injured party contributed to the accident, then contributory negligence applies, and the injured party may not be able to recover any damages. There are only four states and the District of Columbia that recognize pure contributory negligence, as most states, including California, have adopted comparative negligence standards.
The defense of assumption of risk in California was established by the California Supreme Court. The Court recognized two types of assumption of risk, one in which the negligent party would have no liability, and one in which liability would be shared. Injured victims will need an experienced negligence lawyer in San Jose, CA to help them fight against any defense the negligent party tries to use.
California’s Pure Comparative Negligence Law
It can be difficult to discern who owed what duty to whom in an accident, and who was liable for the damages suffered. It often requires a negligence lawyer in San Jose, CA to carefully examine and apply the comparative fault laws of California.
California follows pure comparative negligence, which was adopted by Li v. Yellow Cab Co., 532 P.2d 1226 (1975). Under this law, injured parties are able to collect damages even if they are 99% at fault for an accident.
It is a good idea to speak with a negligence lawyer in San Jose, CA if you are injured in an accident of any kind. It is vital for you to not admit fault after an accident. Even if you were looking at your phone and slipped on a liquid in a store does not mean your damages are your fault. There are many factors to consider. A knowledgeable lawyer will help you navigate your case.
The information contained in these pages should not be taken as a substitute for legal advice and it is in fact not legal advice, especially as to cases which are highly fact-specific.