If a personal injury case were to progress to the point where it would be decided in court, the jury would almost certainly be told to ask this question: Should the responsible party have foreseen at the incident’s location the existence of certain accident-causing factors?
Why would it be necessary for a jury to ask that question?
The legal system has placed a limit on the type of expectations that any targeted victim might have of his or of the responsible party. That victim cannot expect another party to automatically note all the possible ways that his or her actions could harm a 3rd party. The legal system only asks defendants to note the probable results for performance of a foreseeable action.
If an accident victim were to file a personal injury claim against a responsible party that could not have foreseen the results of his or her actions, then the court would declare that claim to be part of a super-seeding case. Courts do not agree to hear a super-seeding case.
What question would a judge tell the jury it should not consider?
The members of a jury are not supposed to consider the answer to this question: Should the responsible party have foreseen the consequences of his or her actions?
The legal system stands ready to impose a demand for compensation from anyone that has caused an accident. It does not temper the size of that demand, according to the extent of harm that was done to the innocent victim.
In other words, injury lawyer in Thousand Oaks knows that anyone that has chosen to breach is or her duty should pay the price, even if the victim had suffered exaggerated effects, due to the existence of one of the following:
—A body part that had been injured in a previous accident
—A pre-existing medical condition.
When someone applies for a license, the state that issues that license does not put limits on someone that has a pre-existing condition, unless that same condition could cause the potential driver to post a risk to other drivers. Since there are no such limits, there can be no limits on the situations that result in harm to a victim.
Sometimes the legal system manages to escape the need for such limits by requiring certain user of the road to wear special gear. For instance, the rider of a motorcycle must wear a helmet. That acts of a means for limiting the effect of any motorcycle-larger vehicle collision.
Sometimes adjusters try to suggest that someone with a preexisting condition must also wear some type of protective gear. However, that is not the case. Adjusters use that suggestion in hopes of getting the victim to reduce the size of his or her demand.
