Being involved in a car accident is a shocking and often horrendous event. Victims can be left dealing with serious injuries and the difficult task of understanding what happened and who was at fault. Negligence is the cause of many automobile collisions in Massachusetts and elsewhere; therefore, victims are often seeking ways to prove that a driver was distracted, intoxicated or otherwise negligent behind the wheel.
What evidence can be used to prove negligence in a car accident? When an accident victim asserts negligence in a civil action, this calls into question whether or not the driver in question acted as a reasonable person would in a similar circumstance. One way to prove negligence in a car crash is to show that the driver was not obeying traffic laws at the time of the crash. If a driver failed to obey these laws, this could be used as evidence to prove negligence.
Evidence to prove negligence can come in one of two forms: direct evidence or circumstantial evidence. Direct evidence is evidence that is derived from the personal knowledge of a witness or images in a photograph. On the other hand, circumstantial evidence requires a fact-finder to draw an inference based on the evidence that has been produced in the matter.
In car accident cases, victims can both direct and circumstantial evidence to prove that another person’s negligence caused the accident. For example, any person who witnessed the accident can provide an account of what they saw. On the other hand, evidence like skid marks can help a judge or jury infer certain facts about the driver’s speed at the time of the accident.
Being harmed by a negligent driver can result in much hardship for victims. Therefore, it is important that injured victims understand their rights. With a thorough accident investigation, a victim could prove a negligent driver’s liability and seek compensation through a personal injury claim.
Source: FindLaw, “Proof in a Negligence Case,” accessed Feb. 19, 2017
