Type of Accident

The type of accident in which the injuries were incurred is a primary factor to be considered in the evaluation of your injury case. This is an important topic to discuss with your injury attorney.

Favorable Cases

Rear-end, crosswalk, safety-zone, or stopped-vehicle cases are generally regarded as favorable verdict cases for the plaintiff. These cases are favorable because liability is not disputed and the plaintiff is 0% at fault. Other type of cases that have much value include injuries to children because children are regarded as not having any possible negligence under the law.

Unfavorable Cases

Cases involving jaywalkers, persons on bicycles or motorcycles, and children running into the street typically difficult and unfavorable. Here, the plaintiff is typically attributed some responsibility for walking in a non-crossing zone, for riding a bicycle on the wrong side of the street, or for running into or crossing the street during a high traffic time.

Cases With Increased Value

Hit-and-run cases, drunk-driving cases, cases of extreme negligence, and gruesome dog bites have more value than the typical car accident with soft tissue injuries. Jury members are likely to place themselves in the position of either the plaintiff to assess whether the plaintiff or the defendant was at fault. The members of the jury also will assess how bad the injuries may be. Here, the injured victims are victims of crimes committed by the Defendant. Not only are they entitled to civil damages, but they are entitled to criminal restitution. Thus, the nature of the injury becomes an important factor in valuation.

Cases Where the Plaintiff Was Doing Something "Bad"

There are cases where the plaintiff admits that he or she was on the way to a bar or a party. For example, a case in Pima County showed that the Defendant driver and his passenger friend were drinking heavily at a bar. They then headed home and the driver was not able to control his vehicle, in part because the winding road was not clearly marked. The jury came back and awarded the paraplegic passenger absolutely nothing.

The defense verdict was based on the fact that both the plaintiff and the defendant had spent a substantial amount of time at a bar during a Sunday "church" morning. In other words, the plaintiff and the defendant chose to drink while most people attend church or spend time with their families on a Sunday morning. Therefore, the Plaintiff's actions have to be assessed before filing a lawsuit.