What are the common defenses used in a boating accident case?

In a boating accident case in New Hampshire, the most common defenses used are contributory negligence, assumption of risk, and lack of causation. Contributory negligence is when the victim of the accident acted negligently themselves and had some responsibility in the accident. Assumption of risk is when the victim was made aware of the risk before they decided to accept it. Lastly, lack of causation is when the victim is unable to prove that the circumstances of the accident were a direct cause of the injuries they suffered. In order to use any of the common defenses for a boating accident, the defendant must prove that the victim failed to take reasonable measures to prevent the accident from occurring. When it comes to contributory negligence, the defendant must prove that the victim was negligent based on the circumstances surrounding the accident. For example, if the victim was operating their boat recklessly and at an excessive speed and there was an accident, it could be argued that the victim was partially at fault. In addition, with assumption of risk, the defendant must show that the victim was aware of the potential risks and accepted them anyway. For example, if the victim accepted a ride on a boat owned by the defendant, the defendant could argue that the victim knew the risks associated with taking a boat ride and accepted them anyway. Lastly, with lack of causation, the defendant must show that the victim cannot prove that the accident was the direct cause of their injuries. In short, the most common defenses used in a boating accident case in New Hampshire are contributory negligence, assumption of risk, and lack of causation. It is important to note, however, that in order for any of these defenses to be successful, the defendant must be able to prove the validity of their argument.

What are the common defenses used in a boating accident case?

Related FAQs

Related Blog Posts