Someone that has filed a personal liability claim accepts that fact that the defendant did not cause any intentional harm to anyone. Still, that same defendant can be charged with negligence.
What elements must be present, in order to prove negligence?
The lawyer will need to prove that the defendant had a duty of care to others and to himself or herself. They will need to prove that the defendant breached that duty of care. A breach can take the form of a reckless or careless action. On the other hand, the absence of a needed action can also qualify as a breach.
Evidence that the breach caused the plaintiff/patient to suffer an injury or a loss. In those instances, where the plaintiff gets injured, it may prove hard to prove the existence of that new and specific injury. The plaintiff’s lawyer would need to locate an expert on the plaintiff’s medical condition. That expert could explain how the doctor’s actions resulted in appearance of a new problem, one that was unrelated to the patient’s existing condition.
The final element relates to the extent of the patient’s loss. The plaintiff’s injury must have contributed to the plaintiff’s existing burden a definite and added burden. Moreover, that added burden must constitute a sizeable monetary loss. In the absence of such a loss, the court will not acknowledge the existence of any grounds for a medical malpractice claim.
The role of the testimony from an expert
As explained in an earlier paragraph, a personal injury lawyer in Collingwood may need to obtain an expert on medical issues, in order to prove that a doctor’s actions resulted in injuring the lawyer’s client. Yet there is another time when a lawyer might choose to hire an expert medical witness.
That would be when the plaintiff must prove that the defendant had breached his or her duty of care. A lawyer would not always know when performance or denial of a given action represented a breach of care. A medical expert could explain what action was expected from a physician. An engineer could state whether or not a roadway had been designed with an eye towards the safety of the motorists that would ride on it.
The hiring of an expert is not always necessary, in order to have a provable personal injury case. Still, there could be times when an economic expert might be consulted. An economic expert could help with determining whether or not the plaintiff had suffered a demonstrable monetary loss.
Suppose, for example that a young man gets in a car accident within days of losing a job. He would not need any replacement income. Still an economist could calculate the amount of his future lost earnings, if he had suffered a catastrophic injury.