Let’s take a deep dive into a couple of personal injury terms … well, maybe dip our toe in the water.
“Foreseeability” and “proximate cause” are two key factors in proving negligence in a personal injury case. Foreseeability refers to predictability — an act that someone of ordinary mental capacity should be able to see will lead to repercussions, meaning a plaintiff’s injury or property damage. For instance, a dog attack should be foreseeable when a dog has a history of such behavior.
Proximate cause can be defined as the “legal cause” of an injury — in the eyes of the law, the primary reason an injury occurred. It need not be the first event of a sequence of events leading to the injury, nor necessarily the most eye-catching aspect of the accident. Some states utilize the “but for” test: The injury would not have happened but for the proximate cause (i.e., the defendant’s negligence). Other states use the “substantial factor” test. This considers whether the defendant’s negligence was a substantial factor in causing the injury. If the contribution to the injury is deemed trivial, it won’t achieve proximate-cause status. As you can imagine, the definition of “trivial” may be disputed.
Although injury may be foreseeable, the extent of injury might not be — the same negligent act can affect one person more severely than the next. Regardless, a liable defendant will be on the hook for the full extent of the plaintiff’s damages. This is known as the “eggshell skull” rule.
If you find yourself the victim of negligence, contact our firm. We will fight to attain fair compensation for your injuries, allowing you to focus on healing.
