Common Defenses in Injury Lawsuits

If you have been injured as a result of someone else’s negligence, you may be considering filing a personal injury lawsuit. However, it is important to be aware that the defendant in a personal injury case may use certain defenses in an attempt to avoid liability. 

Comparative Negligence

One defense that defendants may use is comparative negligence. This defense argues that the plaintiff is partially to blame for their own injuries. For example, if a driver runs a red light and hits a pedestrian who is jaywalking, the driver may argue that the pedestrian’s jaywalking was a contributing factor to the accident. In California, if the plaintiff is found to be more than 50% at fault for their own injuries, they will not be able to recover any damages.

Assumption of Risk

Another defense that defendants may use is assumption of risk. This defense argues that the plaintiff knew or should have known of the risks involved in the activity that led to their injuries and voluntarily assumed those risks. For example, if a skydiver is injured during a jump, the defendant may argue that the skydiver assumed the risk of injury by choosing to participate in a dangerous activity. Similarly, if a person is injured while participating in an extreme sport like rock climbing or bungee jumping, the defendant may argue that the person assumed the risk of injury by choosing to participate in such activities.

However, it’s important to note that assumption of risk defense is not always a valid defense. For example, if a person is injured on a roller coaster due to the negligence of the ride operator or manufacturer, the assumption of risk defense would not apply. In these cases, the plaintiff may still be able to recover damages for their injuries.

Another example is a Slip and Fall case, where a person slips and falls on a wet floor in a grocery store. The store owner may argue that the person assumed the risk of falling by choosing to walk on the wet floor, but if the store owner was aware of the wet floor and failed to take action to clean it up or warn customers, the assumption of risk defense would not be valid.

The key to understanding the assumption of risk defense is that, if the defendant has breached a duty of care, the defense of assumption of risk cannot be used.

Statute of Limitations

A third defense that defendants may use is the statute of limitations. This defense argues that the plaintiff did not file their lawsuit within the time period allowed by law. In California, the statute of limitations for personal injury lawsuits is generally two years from the date of the accident. If the plaintiff does not file their lawsuit within that time period, the defendant may argue that the lawsuit should be dismissed.

It’s important to keep in mind that the statute of limitations can vary depending on the type of accident and injury, so it’s important to consult with a personal injury attorney as soon as possible. For example, the statute of limitations for medical malpractice cases is generally three years from the date of the injury, or one year from the date of discovery of the injury.

In some cases, the statute of limitations may be extended. For example, if the plaintiff is a minor or if the plaintiff is mentally incapacitated, the statute of limitations may be extended. In these situations, it’s crucial to consult with a personal injury attorney who can advise you on the specific time limits that apply to your case.

Release or Waiver

Another defense that defendants may use is a release or waiver. This defense argues that the plaintiff signed a document releasing the defendant from liability for any future injuries. For example, if a person signs a waiver before participating in a sports league, the league may argue that the person released them from liability for any injuries sustained during the league.

Similarly, if a person signs a release form before taking a tour or participating in an adventure activity, the tour operator or activity provider may argue that the person released them from liability for any injuries sustained during the tour or activity.

However, it’s important to note that releases and waivers are not always enforceable. For example, if a release or waiver is signed under duress, or if it contains language that is unclear or ambiguous, it may not be considered valid.

Also, in some cases releases and waivers may not be valid if they are in violation of public policy or if they are in violation of the law. In these cases, the plaintiff may still be able to recover damages for their injuries.

Comparative Fault

Another defense that defendants may use is comparative fault. This defense argues that the plaintiff is partially to blame for their own injuries. For example, if a driver runs a red light and hits a pedestrian who is jaywalking, the driver may argue that the pedestrian’s jaywalking was a contributing factor to the accident. In California, if the plaintiff is found to be more than 50% at fault for their own injuries, they will not be able to recover any damages.

However, it’s important to note that comparative fault does not mean the plaintiff is barred from recovering any damages. Instead, the damages are reduced by the percentage of fault attributed to the plaintiff. For example, if the plaintiff is found to be 20% at fault, the damages awarded would be reduced by 20%.

Best Personal Injury Lawyer in West Covina

If you have been injured in an accident in Los Angeles or the greater West Covina area, contact the Law Firm of Oscar Ischiu, Esq today for a consultation. Our experienced personal injury attorneys have the knowledge and expertise to help you defend your claim and recover the compensation you deserve. We will help you to understand the laws and regulations surrounding your case, including the different defenses that may be used against you, and to build a strong case to support your claim.