What defences might be used to challenge liability in a pedestrian accident case?

In Washington, the defendant in a pedestrian accident case could use several defences to challenge liability. The most common would be Comparative Negligence. This defence would argue that the pedestrian themselves was also partly responsible for the accident and should therefore bear some responsibility for the outcome. The degree of responsibility that would be attributed to the pedestrian would depend on the particular circumstances of the case. Another defence that could be used is Assumption of Risk. This defence would assert that the pedestrian either willingly accepted the risk of the accident or should have been aware of the risk. For example, if the pedestrian chose to cross the road in a hazardous location and did not take appropriate safety measures, this defence might be used to reduce the defendant’s liability. In addition, the defence of Contributory Negligence could be used to challenge liability. This defence would claim that the pedestrian contributed to the accident in some way, either by failing to take adequate safety measures or by not paying attention while crossing the road. Finally, the defence of Necessity might be used. This defence would argue that the defendant had no alternative other than being involved in the accident. For example, if the defendant was forced to swerve onto the pavement to avoid a collision with another vehicle, this defence could be used. In any pedestrian accident case in Washington, the defences outlined above could be used to challenge liability. Ultimately, the success of the defence will depend on the particular circumstances of the case and the argument presented by the defendant.

Related FAQs

What defences might be used to challenge liability in a pedestrian accident case?

Related FAQs

Related Blog Posts