What is a “comparative fault” argument in sports injury cases?

A “comparative fault” argument is a legal defense used in sports injury cases in West Virginia. The argument argues that both the plaintiff and defendant are both partially at fault for the injury. In some cases, the defendant may try to prove that the plaintiff was at least partly responsible for the injury through their own carelessness or reckless behavior. For example, the defendant may argue that if the plaintiff had been wearing the proper protective gear or had taken certain safety precautions, they may have avoided injury. The defendant and their lawyer will use this argument to attempt to reduce the amount of money that they are liable to pay to the plaintiff. To evaluate a “comparative fault” argument, the court will look at the evidence provided by both the plaintiff and the defendant. A jury will weigh both parties’ evidence and decide how much each party was at fault. Depending on the outcome of this weighing of evidence, the court may decide that the plaintiff is fully or partially responsible for the injury. If the plaintiff is partially responsible, the court will reduce the amount of money they are liable to pay to the plaintiff accordingly. This is known as “comparative fault”. In West Virginia, the contributory negligence of the plaintiff is relevant to any claim made against the defendant. Therefore, it is important for both parties to be mindful of the evidence they present to the court regarding the case, as this will affect the ultimate decision of how much money the defendant is liable to pay the plaintiff.

What is a “comparative fault” argument in sports injury cases?

Related FAQs

Related Blog Posts