There is a belief among insurance companies that if there is not a lot of damage to the vehicles involved, then there cannot be a lot of injuries in a case. This is a theory but the issue is: does the value of the case raise or lower based on the damages to the vehicle. If one car is at fault in an accident, it would owe any resulting damages. The key issue there is “resulting” damages. The plaintiff in an injury must prove “causation” which is the nexus or connection between fault and damages. The point is that if an impact is large and there is a lot of damages to the cars involved, it is easier for a jury to make the connection or causatin between the accident and the damages whereas if there is little or no damages to the vehicles, a jury is more likely to reject the damages being caused by the accident.
