Call us now
Claimants that manage to understand how an insurance company determines who should be blamed for a given accident end up in a better position, at the conclusion of negotiations. The same claimants have learned what questions an insurance adjuster might ask, prior to launching an investigation.
What was in the police report?
What were the arriving officer’s observations?
Had any of the involved drivers received a citation from the arriving officer?
Was there any error in the police report?
–If it was a factual error, produce evidence to support claim about the mistake
–If an opinion has been questioned, then the questioner should seek permission to append a statement.
What was not in the police report?
Did the arriving officer suggest that either driver was responsible for the accident? The absence of such a suggestion could be used to refute an allegation that might have been made against either driver. Personal Injury Lawyer in Sarnia make a point of checking to see what opinion had gone unmentioned in any report that was made by the arriving officer.
Were any traffic laws violated during the moments just before the accident?
What claims have the involved drivers made, in response to any receipt of a traffic ticket? Did the information in each claim match with the information in the other driver’s claims?
Understand that the answer to the above questions might not demonstrate clearly that a certain driver was to blame. Sometimes the involved drivers offer contradictory claims.
What was the nature of the collision?
Personal Injury Lawyer in Sarnia know that certain collisions, such as one that has involved the rear-ending of an identified vehicle provide a strong clue, regarding the identity of the at-fault driver.
Other evidence that might be used to support an allegation that the other driver was responsible for the accident’s occurrence
Same driver is known to have committed an act of negligence: For instance, he or she might have been found guilty of distracted driving.
The same driver was charged with recklessness: He or she might have been speeding, or, perhaps, drove through a stop sign or a red light.
The driver’s misconduct had been labeled intentional: Drivers found guilty of DUI have chosen to disobey the law. Each of them made an intentional action.
Strict liability: Performance of an action that was so risky that mention of cause is not required. If a driver had committed that risky action at the request of an employer, then the same employer could be charged with strict liability. Alternately, if an employer had given the OK to performance of a risky action, then again, the employer could be held responsible for the fact that an employed driver had carried out an action with known risk.