During a car accident case, it is common to find defendants alleging that the injuries attributed to the crash were caused by something else. Sometimes, they even argue that the plaintiff wasn’t as seriously injured as they alleged. As you already know, drivers have the responsibility to drive with reasonable care. When drivers breach the duty of care they owed, injuries are bound to occur.

Aside from proving that the defendant motorist was to blame for the crash, a car accident lawyer looking to secure damage for his or her client’s car accident injuries must also be able to show the causal nature, as well as the extent of the injuries sustained. When it comes to filing a personal injury lawsuit, this causal element is critical in securing financial compensation as exemplified in a recent Orlando case.

In this recent car accident lawsuit, a unanimous verdict was recently affirmed by the Florida Supreme Court. Despite the disappointing outcome, it is worthwhile for any car accident lawyer in Orlando to explore what went wrong.

It was observed that while the plaintiff was driving, the defendant who was rightly ahead of the plaintiff’s vehicle made a sudden left turn that led to the crash of both cars. The plaintiff was immediately taken from the accident scene via ambulance to a hospital located nearby to be treated for neck and back pain.

A couple of years later, the plaintiff filed an accident lawsuit which was actually within the statute of limitations requesting financial compensation. According to the plaintiff, the defendant was negligent and sought compensation for damages which included medical expenses for the mental and physical pain suffered worth $53,000. Though the defendant duly admitted that the crash occurred as a result of her negligence which caused some injuries to the plaintiff, however, she argued that the crash wasn’t liable for the nature and extent of damages alleged by the plaintiff.

The case went to trial after settlement negotiations failed. Most of the evidence regarding the medical condition of the plaintiff was made available via video depositions. No evidence on the amount of the plaintiff’s property damage, lost earnings, medical expenses, or other special damages was submitted. None of the doctors could definitively state that the plaintiff’s injuries were as a result of the crash as they noted that she had a medical history with back issues and was even diagnosed with carpal tunnel syndrome.

Despite finding the defendant negligent, no damages were awarded by the jurors as they didn’t find her to be responsible for the injuries alleged by the plaintiff. Furthermore, the plaintiff’s request for a new trial which was declined by the trial court was affirmed by the state supreme court.