Personal injury – (248) 588-3333 – The basics of personal injury lawsuits
.
.
When someone sues someone else, it is usually on the basis of a personal injury. What this means is that someone has accidentally or purposefully suffered damage to their body, property, rights, or emotions. The person who is harmed (the plaintiff) can then go to civil court to seek compensation from the one allegedly responsible (the defendant) for this loss or damage. They can only get compensation if they are entitled on the basis of state or federal civil tort law. Typically, this means that the responsible party was at fault, or there was some other circumstance which the government has decided ought to be the basis for compensation.
Basic Concepts
Cases and lawsuits involving personal injuries and accidents are typically referred to as “torts” by lawyers and courts. This is a distinct body of law that has its own unique terms and concepts that are important to know.
Can you only be sued for injuries/damage caused on purpose?
No, you can also sue someone for damage or injuries caused unintentionally. While some causes of action, like “assault” and “battery” are intentional, others can be the result of “negligence” or “recklessness”. The person being sued just needs to have met certain requirements such as mental state.
What does “negligence” mean?
Negligence can best be understood as carelessness that results in a harm for which someone can be sued. More specifically, it means careless behavior that does not comply with the standard of care expected of a reasonable person. Negligence will be discussed in greater detail in the dedicated blog post on that subject.
Negligence is the most common legal standard for determining liability for personal injuries. In short, it is defined as a specific form of careless behavior that causes injury to another person.
What is the specific standard for negligence?
In order to win a negligence lawsuit, the plaintiff must prove each of the following:
- That the defendant had a “duty of care” towards the plaintiff during the incident. That duty of care obligates the defendant to behave as a reasonable person under similar circumstances would act (or some other applicable standard).
- That the defendant breached that duty of care
- That the breach of duty caused the alleged harm to the plaintiff
- That the plaintiff suffered actual harm or injury.
How do you determine when someone has a duty of care towards another?
A defendant owes a duty of care to all foreseeable plaintiffs. In other words you owe a duty of care to anyone that you would reasonably perceive to be at risk as a result of your actions.
What are some examples of people with a duty of care?
He are some examples of situations where someone owes or is owed a duty of care:
- If you cause an accident where rescuers are involved, then your duty of care extends to those rescuers (i.e. they are foreseeable plaintiffs). This also includes situations where you yourself are in need of rescue. Firefighters and police officers are generally barred from filing a lawsuit against a rescue under the “firefighters rule”.
- If a particular economic transaction was intended or foreseen to benefit a third party (such as a will or a trust), then that third party is owed a duty of care by the participants in that transaction.
Duty of care typically exists where there is a special relationship (such as parent and child). It also exists between business owners and their patrons/customers. It also exists, to varying degrees, between property owners and guests on their property.
In certain circumstances you can owe a duty of care to someone you rescue, especially if you were the one to put them in danger in the first place.
How does the court define “reasonable person”?
The “reasonable person” is a fictional person whose behavior is measured against the behavior of a defendant in a lawsuit. The reasonable person does not have a race, an age, a gender, or any mental handicaps. These factors are not considered at all when determining the reasonableness of a person’s actions. However, it will take into account physical disabilities such as blindness or paralysis.
Children are subjected to a slightly modified standard of reasonable care that takes into account age and relative life experience. The exception to this is when the child engages in an adult activity, in which case the same standard as adults applies.
Is “the reasonable person” the only standard used to determine the duty of care?
No, it is not. In addition to the lenient standard we use for children, we also expect individuals with superior or exceptional knowledge and experience to exercise that advantage and thus they are held to a higher standard. Examples of this include:
- Certain professionals: An occupation with certain skills, such as doctors, would be held to a higher standard in situations involving medical care. This heightened duty comes with an obligation for doctors to disclose the risks of any treatment and to obtain a patient’s informed consent.
- Common carriers and innkeepers: entities who provide a very public service to a large number of people have a very high standard of care towards their guests. They are liable for even slight negligence.
- Bailment situations: A bailment relationship occurs when you entrust your personal property to the temporary possession of another person. An example of this would be leaving your car at an auto repair shop. The auto repair shop becomes the “bailee” while the owner is the “bailor”. The standard of care expected of a bailee depends on the nature of the bailment. There are generally three kinds of bailment relationships.
- Bailments that are for the sole benefit of the bailee, such as letting someone borrow something from you. This imposes a very high standard of care.
- Bailments for the sole benefit of the bailor (like free valet services) impose a rather small duty of care where the bailee is only liable for gross negligence.
- Bailments for mutual benefit (standard auto repair shop) impose a standard duty of care (reasonable person).
- Public safety laws: If there is a law in place designed to protect members of the public from certain dangers (such as traffic laws), then everyone in that jurisdiction owes a duty of care to everyone that the particular law was meant to protect.
- Home owners and their guests: When you have someone on your property, that typically creates a duty of care. What that duty consists of varies greatly depending on the circumstance. The law regarding liability for guests is actually quite complex. As such it has its own dedicated chapter in this guide.
- Attorneys: The standard of care for attorneys is their adherence to the standards of professional conduct.
How does the court determine that a duty of care has been breached?
Usually this question is left to the judge or jury’s discretion. They will have to decide if the defendant acted as prudently as a reasonable person under the same circumstances would have. There are some common examples and principals that these decision makers will use determine if breach has occurred.
- Custom: If there are certain customs in society or a particular industry, than a court might consider that any actions complying with that custom do not breach the standard of care. However, a judge or jury can still decide that the custom is unreasonable and negligent.
- Violation of a public safety statute: We all owe a duty of care in the context of public safety laws. If there is a public safety law (like a traffic law), then all people driving cars owe a duty of care to anyone that law is meant to protect. A violation of such a law that results in injury is a pretty clear cut “breach” of the duty to care. This principle is known among lawyers as “negligence per se”.
- Res Ipsa Loquitur: This is a legal term of art used to describe situations where it is difficult to determine precisely what negligent action or person may have caused the accident. The factors used to prove a breach of duty in such a situation are:
- An accident of the sort that doesn’t usually happen unless someone has been negligent.
- If there was any negligence, it was likely on the part of the defendant. This is usually shown by the fact that whatever object or element that caused the injury was in the exclusive possession or control of the defendant.
Making a case for Res Ipsa Loquitur does not guarantee that the judge or jury will find the defendant to be liable. It only means that the plaintiff has satisfied their burden of proving a duty of care and a plausible breach of that duty.
Do you ever have a duty to take action? Or is it just a duty to avoid negligent behavior?
Usually, there is no affirmative duty to act. However, there are some exceptions. You have a duty to take action in the following scenarios:
- Once you start giving aid to someone, you are required to follow through and do so with reasonable care. The Michigan Good Samaritan law create an exception to this rule for doctors and nurses. Under that law, medical practitioners are immune from liability for negligence if they had a good faith belief that there was a life threatening emergency. This immunity is revoked if the practitioner was grossly negligent, which is medical malpractice.
- If you were the one to put the plaintiff in peril, you have the duty to help them.
- If there is a special relationship (parent-child, innkeeper-guest, etc.) then the duty of reasonable care may require them to aid the other person.
- If have the ability and authority to control the actions of a third party, you may be obligated to prevent that third party from injuring another person.
- Merchants generally have no duty to protect their customers from the crimes of third-parties. They are only required to take steps to expedite the involvement of police. However, if there is continuous criminal activity at the business which creates a nuisance, then the property owner is liable for any criminal attacks on their customers.
- If a mental health professional overhears a patient threaten violence against someone, and appears willing and able to make good on that threat, then they must either warn the police (and the person being threatened), or hospitalize the patient making the threat.
Can children be sued for the personal injuries they cause?
Yes Depending on the circumstances. A Michigan court will not allow a lawsuit against a child younger than seven. In any case you are likely going to be suing the parents rather than the child themselves for their malicious or negligent behavior. Furthermore, the courts do not impose the same standard of care on a minor as they would an adult. That will also be discussed in more detail in the negligence chapter of this guide.
.
.
Click link to schedule a free case evaluation:
https://app.acuityscheduling.com/schedule.php?owner=17105687&appointmentType=13607154
For more information visit our website: https://www.akivagoldman.com/
You can give us a call for a FREE phone consultation at (248) 588-3333
For additional information please click here: https://www.akivagoldman.com/michigan-personal-injury-attorney/
#MichiganAttorneys #MichiganInjuryLawyers #BoatingAccident #PersonalInjuryLawyer #GoldmanAndAssociates #OaklandCounty #WayneCounty #MacombCounty #PersonalInjury