Who decides what a reasonably prudent person would have done? If the case goes to court, the answer to that question is a judge and jury. It is a question that has no small degree of subjectivity involved. It’s imperative that injured plaintiffs work with a lawyer who understands how to make her case in court. 

Furthermore, the nature of the case will impact what type of presentation the plaintiff’s attorney makes in court. A medical malpractice case would call for expert testimony, so jury members could understand what a reasonable and prudent professional would have done in specific circumstances. 

Car accidents are different. While expert witnesses may still be needed to assess key details of the crash, everyone on the jury will have their own concept of what a reasonable and prudent person would have done in certain driving conditions. It’s the job of the Orlando personal injury law firm to craft a plan that can reach each individual juror. 

Breach of duty is often one of the most contested areas of any personal injury case. Attorney Modoline Altenor understands what is needed to clear this crucial legal threshold. 

Causation

Causation refers to the link between the defendant's breach of duty and the plaintiff's injuries. There are two types of causation--actual cause and proximate cause.

Actual cause, also known as "but-for" causation, requires demonstrating that the plaintiff's injuries would not have occurred "but for" the defendant's breach of duty. In other words, the plaintiff must show that their injuries were a direct result of the defendant's actions or omissions.

Proximate cause, on the other hand, focuses on whether the defendant's breach of duty was a foreseeable cause of the plaintiff's injuries. Courts evaluate whether the harm suffered by the plaintiff was a natural and probable consequence of the defendant's actions or if it was too remote or unforeseeable.

Damages

The plaintiff must demonstrate that they suffered actual harm or losses as a result of the defendant's breach of duty. Damages can include physical injuries, emotional distress, medical expenses, lost wages, and pain and suffering.

Our office works with injured plaintiffs to gather evidence supporting the extent of the plaintiff's damages. This may involve medical records, bills, expert testimony, and other relevant documentation. Documenting and quantifying the damages is necessary to get fair compensation for the plaintiff.

Modified Comparative Negligence in a Florida Personal Injury Case

Modified comparative negligence is a legal principle that determines how damages are allocated in personal injury cases in Florida. Under this system, an injured party can still recover damages even if they are partially at fault for their injuries. 

In Florida, the threshold for modified comparative negligence is set at 50%. This means that an injured plaintiff can only recover damages if they are found to be 50% or less at fault for the accident. If their level of fault exceeds 50%, they will be barred from recovering any compensation.

To illustrate how modified comparative negligence works, let's consider an example. The plaintiff was injured in a car accident. A settlement of $500,000 has been reached. However, it’s also determined that the plaintiff was 40% at fault for the crash. This means they can only collect 60% of the settlement—which, in this case, would be $300,000. 

Modified comparative negligence underscores even further the importance of good, aggressive legal representation. In the example above, every single percentage point of fault was worth $5,000. You need an Orlando personal injury law firm that will fight for every point. We will.