In line with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 1.7 million people in the U.S. sustain a traumatic brain injury (TBI) every year head injuries in car accidents. These injuries contribute to a next of the deaths due to accidents, and 75% of brain injuries are concussions.
Brain injuries could be caused by a number of incidents, including falls, sports activities, construction site accidents, motor vehicle accidents, pedestrian accidents, military combat, defective products, and assault.
Falls are the most common reason behind brain injuries at 35.2%, and motor vehicle accidents cause 17.3%. Being struck by something – such as in sports activities or construction work – are responsible for 16.5% of brain injuries, and assaults are responsible for 10%. Other causes are in the remaining 21%, in line with the CDC.
Brain injuries are more likely to cause death in motor vehicle accidents than every other cause, and TBIs from falls are more likely to happen in children under the age of 15 and adults over the age of 65.
Nevertheless, these injuries can strike anyone, and they could be fatal. Actress Natasha Richardson died very quickly in 2009 at the age of 45 after sustaining a ball on the head when she fell while skiing in Quebec. She seemed fine at first and refused medical attention. But three hours later, she suffered pain and was soon in a vegetative state consequently of internal bleeding due to the head trauma.
Whenever a brain injury is due to someone else’s negligence, the injured party can file a lawsuit against the individual or organization that is at fault.
The Problems of Proving Fault
In a lawsuit, the injured party is known as the “plaintiff,” and the alleged responsible party is known as the “defendant.” In order for the lawsuit to prevail, the defendant has to owe the plaintiff a “duty of care.” This means that regulations required the defendant to be reasonably careful in ways that could have prevented the accident. The plaintiff then has to prove that the defendant failed in providing that “duty of care,” and that failure has to be shown to have caused mental performance injury.
In Natasha Richardson’s case, for example, she was not wearing a helmet during the time of the accident. The ski resort claimed so it recommends helmet-wearing to all or any skiers, but there was no law in effect in Quebec that mandated the wearing of helmets. Therefore, it would have been burdensome for Richardson’s family to prove fault on the the main ski instructor or the ski resort.
Proving fault could be complex in a wide variety of personal injury cases, but it may be difficult just to prove that a brain injury occurred in the first place. The reason being a few of these injuries don’t show up on medical scans. The plaintiff may notice detrimental effects due to head trauma, but he or she must prove that those effects didn’t begin until following the accident. This can require testimony from others and an evaluation of school or work records.
For instance, brain injuries can cause memory problems, difficulty with concentration, and behavioral changes such as irritability and volatility, as well as trouble controlling emotions. Several of those symptoms are termed “delayed onset” when they don’t show up right away following the accident. Since delayed onset symptoms are not uncommon after head trauma, these injuries tend to be not diagnosed when someone visits the emergency room.
If the plaintiff has received any deficits prior to the accident, including an addiction, mental illness, or learning disabilities, the plot thickens further since the defendant’s attorneys is going to do their best to prove that the observable symptoms are a consequence of preexisting conditions and not the accident. To complicate matters further, the folks who can testify concerning changes in the plaintiff’s behavior or functioning obviously knew the plaintiff prior to the accident. Therefore, these witnesses could be accused of twisting the truth to benefit the plaintiff.
In some cases, fault is cut and dry, such as when an individual proven to have been intoxicated swerves while driving and hits another vehicle. If another driver (or a passenger for the reason that car) suffers clear impairments and frequent debilitating headaches following the accident, negligence on the the main drunk driver is clear. But far too many cases don’t belong to this category.
If another driver or passenger has injuries that do not show up on a brain scan, proving fault may well be more challenging. Another exemplory instance of a challenging case would be one in which a brain injury is believed to have been sustained due to lead poisoning from the product. Cause and effect in this case can be very difficult to substantiate medically.
Attorneys who cope with these kind of injuries have a roster of experts available to gauge the accident and injuries to be able to evaluate where in actuality the fault lies. These experts supply reports that help to prove a plaintiff’s case. The defendant’s attorneys also provide experts, however, and they will provide their particular reports, which can contradict the plaintiff’s experts.
Because of this, a brain injury lawsuit may fail to be in outside court. Once the parties cannot agree concerning fault and/or the amount that ought to be paid by the responsible parties, the lawsuit proceeds to court. Then, a jury or perhaps a judge evaluates the evidence and decides who is to blame and by how much. If you have multiple potential negligent party – such as two drivers in a three-car accident or the maker of a car if, for example, the airbag failed to deploy and allegedly contributed to mental performance injury – fault might be divided by percentages. Perhaps driver #1 will be found to be 50% to blame while the others responsible share less of the fault.
The party found to be primarily to blame will pay for more of the settlement compared to others, and the judge or jury in a court case will determine just how much each party will pay to the plaintiff. The plaintiff will attempt to recuperate money for medical expenses, lost earnings from work, pain and suffering (in states where pain and suffering money damages are allowed), and loss in the capacity to function if the injuries are permanent. If the plaintiff can’t work and/or requires look after the remainder of his or her life, the costs of a brain injury could be astronomical.