What is the difference between a held liable case and a negligence case in a plane crash?

The key difference between a held liable case and a negligence case in a plane crash is the way fault is determined. In a held liable case, one party is held completely responsible for the accident due to their intentional or careless actions. In this case, there does not need to be any proof of negligence in order to assign blame. On the other hand, negligence cases require proof of negligence in order to prove liability. In a negligence case, the court will look at the actions of all parties involved to determine who was at fault. This may include the pilot, the plane manufacturer, or any other party which could have contributed to the accident. In a held liable case, the party responsible is usually required to pay a large sum of money to the victims in the accident as compensation for the damages they have suffered. This could include medical expenses, pain and suffering, lost wages, or even punitive damages. In a negligence case, the party responsible could be held liable for compensatory damages, which include costs incurred by the victims from the accident such as medical bills or pain and suffering. In addition, an additional award of punitive damages may be given in order to punish the negligent party. In summary, the main difference between a held liable case and a negligence case in a plane crash is that a held liable case does not require proof of negligence, while a negligence case does require proof. In a negligence case, the court will look at the actions of the parties involved to determine who was at fault, and an award of compensatory and punitive damages may be given to the victims.

What is the difference between a held liable case and a negligence case in a plane crash?

Related FAQs

Related Blog Posts