Why Negligence Is Not Enough to Prove Damages in aa Portland Personal Injury Claim

You might think that just because you can prove someone caused your car accident, that is all you need to demand compensation. Proving negligence, however, is just the first step. Indeed, even in cases where a defendant admits they were negligent in causing a car accident, the plaintiff still needs to connect the defendant’s actions to their injuries.

USPS Faces Trial Over Rear-End Crash

A recent decision in an ongoing personal injury case, Gallucci v. United States, helps to demonstrate this point. This case involved a rear-end accident. The plaintiffs, a husband and wife, were sitting in their vehicle and stopped at a traffic light when they were rear-ended by a United States Postal Service (USPS) van. The plaintiffs subsequently sued the USPS, alleging they sustained a number of personal injuries, such as whiplash and back pain, as a result of the collision.

It should be noted here that the USPS is an independent agency of the United States government. As such, the plaintiffs filed their lawsuit in federal court under the Federal Tort Claims Act. This is a federal statute that allows individuals to file personal injury lawsuits against federal agencies. While such cases must be heard in federal court without a jury, the judge must still apply Oregon law.

In this case, the plaintiffs argued they were entitled to summary judgment on liability because the USPS driver who operated the van at the time of the accident admitted that it was a brake failure in her vehicle that led to the collision. The judge disagreed. She explained that “fault for the collision itself does not automatically establish causation of the damages that plaintiffs seek.” The plaintiffs must also present medical evidence showing the injuries they claimed were the result of the collision.

At this stage of the case, the judge said the plaintiffs had yet to present such evidence. In contrast, the government offered testimony from a medical expert who claimed “that plaintiffs’ preexisting injuries and occupational harms are the cause of the majority of their alleged damages.” The government further argued that one of the plaintiffs “failed to timely and continuously attend treatment following the collision,” which could mitigate (reduce) any damages he might be entitled to from the Postal Service. In any event, the judge said it was premature to rule in favor of the plaintiffs on liability or damages, so the matter would proceed to trial.

Contact a Portland Rear-End Accident Lawyer Today

While it is common knowledge that rear-end accidents are almost always the fault of the trailing driver, that alone does not establish a victim’s right to compensation in the event of a collision. You still need to build and present a compelling case for damages. Our Portland rear-end crash lawyers can assist you in this regard. We have a proven track record of obtaining compensation for our clients. Contact Rosenbaum Law Group, PC, today at 503-288-8000 to schedule a free consultation.

Source:

scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8082176205536818246