Skip to main content


The law and precedent strongly support the concept of “duty.” Generally, every person owes the world around him or her a “duty” to use reasonable care, and to not cause unnecessary harm to other people, property and other things. Professionals such as doctors have a heightened duty of care towards others when treating them because of their status as trained professionals.


If we assume that the defendant has a duty, the plaintiff must then prove that the defendant broke that duty by either doing the act or not doing the act. The standard applied here is the “reasonable person” standard, which means that the decision maker in a case must decide what a “reasonable person” would have done or not done under similar circumstances. If we determine that the defendant did not act in that manner, it can demonstrate a breach of duty.


After proving the first two elements, the plaintiff must proceed to prove causation, which is one of the most intricate legal theories in the field of personal injury law. Basically, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant’s breach of duty caused the injuries that occurred. There are several tests that a court will apply to help reach this determination. The plaintiff needs to demonstrate that if it weren’t for the defendant’s actions, the plaintiff would probably not have suffered any injuries.


If the plaintiff manages to prove the first three elements, his or her case is not proven overall at this point. He or she must also prove that there were damages suffered, and these need not be only monetary damages. A plaintiff can suffer damages by way of pain and suffering, extreme emotional distress and loss of companionship, among other things, but in order to hold someone accountable for causing an injury, the plaintiff must also show a loss.

Personal injury cases can be difficult to mange, that’s why its important to get an expert attorney to help you with your case. Contact Habush Habush & Rottier today, our attorneys are here to help.