Essentially yes. Every personal injury case has two components: (1) liability and (2) damages. You do not get to #2 unless you can pin liability on the other side first. Sometimes the other side may have arguments regarding liability and because of the risks involved, they agree to settle and pay something instead of going to trial and getting hit hard for a full verdict amount.

Answer Applies to: California
Replied: 11/17/2011

Disclaimer: The response above does not form an attorney-client relationship. This answer may or may not apply to you and should not be relied upon as legal advice. LawQA does not make any representation as to the expertise or qualifications of this attorney. This attorney may or may not be admitted to state bar of your state.

One may not collect damages from another absent the violation of a duty of care (in the injury setting). Negligence is the failure to do something the result of which causes another to suffer injury. For example, the failure to clean up a spill in a store aisle where the store owner has knowledge of the hazard. I can also be the injured person's failure to exercise due care for him or herself. Just stepping into the street with traffic or not avoiding the obvious spill when there is a broken bottle in the store aisle.

Answer Applies to: California
Replied: 11/17/2011

Disclaimer: The response above does not form an attorney-client relationship. This answer may or may not apply to you and should not be relied upon as legal advice. LawQA does not make any representation as to the expertise or qualifications of this attorney. This attorney may or may not be admitted to state bar of your state.

In order to succeed in making a negligence claim, and thereby collect damages, an injured plaintiff must prove (1) that the defendant had a DUTY to act a certain way (i.e., we all have a duty to drive safely), (2) that the defendant BREACHED that duty (i.e., drove their vehicle in such a manner that they collided with plaintiff's vehicle), (3) that the breach of duty CAUSED an injury (i.e., when the defendant's vehicle struck plaintiff's vehicle, plaintiff suffered a physical injury) and (4) that the breach of duty which caused plaintiff's physical injury resulted in plaintiff suffering DAMAGE of some kind (i.e., the injury suffered by the plaintiff required medical treatment - which cost $). This is a very simplistic breakdown and example of the basic elements of a negligence cause of action (there is much more that is/should be evaluated) but hopefully it answers your question.

Answer Applies to: California
Replied: 11/17/2011

Disclaimer: The response above does not form an attorney-client relationship. This answer may or may not apply to you and should not be relied upon as legal advice. LawQA does not make any representation as to the expertise or qualifications of this attorney. This attorney may or may not be admitted to state bar of your state.

Negligence is present where someone fails to abide by the appropriate standard of care. In most personal injury cases, a plaintiff must prove that the defendant was negligent, i.e. failed to take the proper precautions that a reasonable person would have taken under those same circumstances. However, in the some personal injury cases, such as assault, battery, false imprisonment, etc. negligence is not required if the defendant acted intentionally. In another category of cases, known as strict liability cases, negligence is also not required, but these types of cases are quite rare. Your average slip and fall or traffic accident case will almost always require proof of negligence.

Answer Applies to: California
Replied: 11/17/2011

Disclaimer: The response above does not form an attorney-client relationship. This answer may or may not apply to you and should not be relied upon as legal advice. LawQA does not make any representation as to the expertise or qualifications of this attorney. This attorney may or may not be admitted to state bar of your state.