In the last blog entry, I spoke about causation. Causation is defined as the element of a personal injury case which connects the liability aspect of a case to the damages itself. As explained, under Florida law, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving three elements:
- defendant is negligent;
- the plaintiff sustained damages (medical bills, lost wages or loss of ability to earn wages, and pain and suffering);
- the alleged damages were caused by this particular negligence, i.e. causation.
While this seems like a very straightforward element, it can be somewhat complicated. Consequently, I am devoting several blog posts to this topic.
From a trial standpoint, causation would usually be elicited from the plaintiff by questions such as:
- “When did your neck pain begin?” (the answer to prove this would usually be something to the effect of: “the pain began right after the accident.” )
- “What caused your neck pain?” (the answer would be something like, “the accident.”)
It also could be proved by elimination, by questions such as:
- “Did you have pain to your neck before the accident?” (with an answer stating, “no.”)
Further questions pertaining to how the neck was injured would go to causation, such as:
- “What happened to your body as the cars collided?” with an answer like, “my neck went backwards then forwards quickly and immediately began to hurt.”
These sorts of questions and answers would make a prima facie case of causation but, this could be disproved by defense counsel in many ways. In the last blog, I wrote about how the property damage (the damage to the cars; or lack of damage to the car) could be used as proof that the injured was most likely NOT caused from the accident, when there is very little or no damage to the car. On the other hand, when a car is significantly damaged, this would be used by the injured person as proof that the injury was more likely to have been CAUSED by the accident. For example in the last blog entry, I also wrote about how pictures of bruising could be used in a slip/fall case to display the violent nature of the fall and was more likely the reason the fall is what caused such injuries.
Another common defense to causation is based on delays in treatment. So for example, if someone is involved in a car accident or a slip/fall case but does not go to the hospital or go to any doctor for treatment related to the accident for a month or longer- this sort of evidence may be used by the defense to suggest that the accident most likely did not cause the injuries. The argument would be that if the person was really hurt in the accident, then they would have sought treatment right away. Conversely, if a client goes by ambulance to the hospital, this would work in favor of the causation element, that the injuries are more likely to be related to an accident.
Clients commonly ask whether they should go to the hospital following an accident- my general response is that if you would go to the hospital following an injury where there was no case and if you would go to the hospital in that instance, then I would recommend going to the hospital. Oftentimes, clients come to the law office after several weeks have transpired since the accident and the client is complaining of pain. My suggestion then, is to get to a physician as soon as possible. It would be better that client’s first visit is two weeks after an accident as opposed to three/four weeks after an accident, for example. Delays in treatment can be very troublesome to an injury case. When several weeks have gone by, it really begs the question of whether the injuries complained of are related to the accident.
Similarly, when clients have gaps in treatment, it can impact the causation issue as well. For example, a client goes regularly to a physician and participates in therapy, but there is a month or more gap of time between the treatments. Again, these actions only question the legitimacy of causation, as the defense will argue that if the client was really hurt, there would not be such gaps in care.
Every case is different and must be judged on the facts of the ccase and of its merits. It is a good start to get a consultation regarding an injury case in case this happens to you. The information contained in this blog is intended to be of general matter and not as to a specific situation, so please call a licensed Florida attorney, like Drucker Law Offices, to determine if and how Florida law applies to your situation.
It is also important to understand that causation is not the only element. A plaintiff has to prove liability and damages as well.
In some cases, it is very clear that certain damages were CAUSED in an accident. In a bad accident where internal injuries are present, it would be rare for the defense to contest those damages were caused from the accident. Where someone falls hard and badly breaks their arm, the causation element would not usually be raised. When all accounts are that someone broke their leg or was bleeding profusely from the knee, these sorts of damages are not commonly challenged. However, when there are delays in treatment for neck injuries or there is little damage to the vehicles and someone is claiming lower back injuries, questions of actual causation of the injuries are raised.
In the next blog entry, I will discuss the last common causation defense of prior similar injuries and how those are worked out in an accident case.
It is important to note that every case is unique and should be judged based on the specific facts of the case. The advice in this blog is intended to be general in nature and should not to be construed as specific advice for a case, as a minor difference in the facts of the case could change the result. Also, this blog is, as the web site suggests, based on Florida law and the laws of any other states or even another country could vary from Florida.
If you or a loved one has been involved in an accident, please call Drucker Law Offices at 561-483-9199 (Boca Raton Main office) or 954-755-2120 (Coral Springs satellite office) or 305-981-1561 (Miami satellite office).
