Q&A - Accident or ??
Am I the only one who has been intrigued by the Law Firms who post advertisements seeking witnesses to "accidents"?
It would seem that, by that terminology, they have just weakened their client's case by admitting that it was "accidental". Should that determination not be made by the Court?
Occasionally, we see such advertisements referring to a "crash", "collision" or "incident" all of which may be correct but do not give away arguments about responsibility.
Think about it. If you were involved in a "coming together" and hiring a Lawyer, would you want one who has already pre-judged the situation as "accidental"?
Comments
Answer
Ah, but there is a very good reason for doing this.
In the case of a hit and run, the victim must make reasonable efforts to identify the culprit. If they do not, they can be denied an insurance claim. This is probably one of the simplest ways to do so and at the same time show that it is being done.
There are also witnesses to collisions who do not remain and identify themselves to either those involved or the police. How do you find them after the fact to help prove your client's case? Advertise of course.
I would be curious to know how effective this is.
Terminology in the advertisement
My point was the terminology used in the advertisement for witnesses. Not the fact that someone is hoping for a witness to come forward.
Even if some one is responsible...can't it still be accidental?
I accidentally break a lot of things (clumsy), and I'm also responsible for the damage.
Accident
Are we not maybe just getting a little too technical?
The word could be added to colloquialism.