Common Defenses Used in Negligence Cases and How to Counter Them
Negligence cases can arise in a variety of situations, from slip-and-fall injuries to auto accidents. When someone is injured due to another party’s negligence, they often face defense strategies designed to minimize or dismiss their claims. Understanding these defenses is essential for building a strong case and securing fair compensation.
At The Ardoin Law Firm P.C. in Houston, Texas, we’re committed to helping clients overcome the challenges of negligence cases. By breaking down the common defenses used in these cases, we aim to provide valuable knowledge to those pursuing justice. Let’s explore some common defenses you may encounter.
Comparative Negligence Defense
One of the most common defenses in negligence cases is comparative negligence. This argument asserts that the plaintiff shares some responsibility for the accident and the resulting injuries. According to Texas Statutes, plaintiffs may only recover damages if they're less than 51% at fault.
Defendants often use this strategy to reduce their financial liability by highlighting the plaintiff’s actions. For example, in auto accidents, a defendant might argue that the plaintiff’s speeding contributed to the collision. Establishing comparative negligence requires presenting evidence, such as witness testimony or accident reconstructions, to support the claim.
Countering this defense involves challenging the evidence presented and demonstrating that the plaintiff’s actions didn't significantly contribute to the accident. Moving from comparative negligence, we turn to another frequently used defense—the assumption of risk.
Assumption of Risk Defense
The assumption of risk defense claims that the injured party knowingly accepted the risks associated with a particular activity. This defense is often used in cases involving recreational activities, such as skiing or attending a sporting event, where risks are inherent.
Some key factors to keep in mind include:
Voluntary participation: Defendants must show that the plaintiff willingly engaged in the activity.
Knowledge of risks: It must be demonstrated that the plaintiff understood the specific risks involved.
Waivers or agreements: Signed waivers often play a significant role in supporting this defense.
Countering the assumption of risk defense often involves proving that the risks weren't fully disclosed or that the defendant’s actions exceeded the normal scope of the activity, creating additional dangers.
The Statute of Limitations Defense
The statute of limitations defense argues that the plaintiff’s claim is invalid because it wasn't filed within the legally required time frame. In Texas, the statute of limitations for negligence cases, including auto accidents, is typically two years from the date of the incident.
Defendants may use this defense to have a case dismissed outright. While this is a strong argument if the timeline has expired, plaintiffs can counter it by showing that an exception applies, such as the discovery rule. The discovery rule allows claims to proceed if the injury or negligence wasn't immediately apparent.
Challenging the statute of limitations defense requires clear evidence that the claim was filed within the appropriate window or that an exception is applicable. This leads us to the next commonly used defense—contributory negligence.
Contributory Negligence Defense
Contributory negligence is similar to comparative negligence but often harsher. Under this defense, any level of fault attributed to the plaintiff can bar them from recovering damages. Although Texas follows comparative negligence, understanding this defense is still important when dealing with multi-state claims.
Countering contributory negligence requires demonstrating that the plaintiff’s actions were reasonable and didn't contribute significantly to the incident. Establishing this involves presenting credible evidence, such as professional analysis or eyewitness accounts, to disprove the defendant’s claims.
From contributory negligence, we move on to the defense of sudden emergency, which is frequently cited in negligence cases.
Sudden Emergency Defense
The sudden emergency defense argues that the defendant’s actions were reasonable given the unexpected circumstances they faced. This defense is commonly used in auto accidents, where drivers may claim they acted instinctively to avoid harm.
For example, a driver might argue that they swerved into another vehicle to avoid hitting a pedestrian who darted into the road. While this defense acknowledges the defendant’s actions, it also frames them as unavoidable given the emergency.
Countering the sudden emergency defense often involves demonstrating that the defendant’s actions weren't reasonable or that the emergency was foreseeable. By challenging the circumstances leading to the emergency, plaintiffs can weaken this defense and shift the focus back to the defendant’s responsibility.
Failure to Mitigate Damages
The failure to mitigate damages defense asserts that the plaintiff didn't take reasonable steps to minimize their losses after the incident. Defendants may argue that the plaintiff’s inaction, such as delaying medical treatment or refusing recommended procedures, worsened their injuries or financial damages.
Some key factors to keep in mind include:
Timely medical care: Demonstrating that the plaintiff sought prompt treatment for their injuries, which helps prevent prolonged or unnecessary suffering. This can include providing medical records that show the timing of visits and treatments.
Following medical advice: Showing compliance with recommended care plans, including physical therapy or surgeries, which supports the claim that the plaintiff was actively trying to recover. Non-compliance can weaken the argument that damages were unavoidable.
Efforts to minimize financial losses: Highlighting steps taken to reduce costs, such as returning to work when medically cleared, to prove that the plaintiff was trying to lessen their financial burden. This could involve presenting evidence of the plaintiff’s job search or part-time work while recovering.
Countering this defense involves presenting evidence of the plaintiff’s proactive efforts to address their injuries and mitigate their losses. Moving from mitigation, we turn to another critical defense—the act of God argument.
Act of God Defense
The act of God defense is used when defendants claim that natural forces beyond their control caused the incident. This defense is often invoked in cases involving severe weather or other environmental factors.
For instance, in auto accidents, a defendant might argue that heavy rain caused their vehicle to lose control, making the crash unavoidable. While the act of God defense absolves the defendant of responsibility, it's not applicable if negligence contributed to the situation.
Challenging this defense requires showing that the defendant failed to take reasonable precautions, such as reducing speed in poor weather conditions. Demonstrating negligence can shift liability back to the defendant. Now we’ll discuss how one can counter a false allegation if it enters the civil discourse.
Countering False Allegations
False allegations are another defense tactic, where defendants may misrepresent events to shift blame onto the plaintiff. This strategy is particularly common in he-said-she-said scenarios, such as disputes over who caused an auto accident.
Addressing false allegations involves collecting credible evidence, including witness statements, video footage, or accident reconstructions, to refute the defendant’s claims. Presenting a clear and factual narrative strengthens the plaintiff’s position and diminishes the impact of falsehoods.
At The Ardoin Law Firm P.C., we understand the challenges plaintiffs face in negligence cases, especially those involving auto accidents. Our goal is to help clients secure fair outcomes by addressing each defense thoughtfully and thoroughly.
Contact The Ardoin Law Firm P.C. Today
If you were harmed due to another party's negligence, don't hesitate to reach out to The Ardoin Law Firm, P.C. We serve clients in Houston, Texas, and the surrounding areas. Contact us today to learn how we can assist in protecting your rights.