Understanding Negligence in Personal Injury Cases
Most people describe their accident to us the same way. Someone was careless, and now they are hurt.
That is the right instinct. It is also not quite what a claim requires. Negligence is a four part test, and a case is only as strong as its weakest part. Plenty of genuinely unfair injuries fail on one element while obvious-looking cases fall apart on another.
We have been doing this from the same Kent office since 1984. Here is the framework we apply in the first meeting, in plain words.
What our clients say
"Jeff Floyd is an attorney with years of experience in both personal injury and family law practices. He combines a wealth of experience with a caring personality. I highly recommend him."David K., Google review
"Jeff and his team are amazing! If you are looking for a team of well experienced and caring lawyer to handle your case, I will highly recommend Jeff Floyd and his team. You won't regret it!"Annie S., Google review
"I have gottne to know Jeff Floyd the last few months and Jeff is a very important part of my circle and is always available and his team cares about their clients."Scully F., Google review
The four parts
Duty.
Did the other person owe you care in the first place? Drivers owe it to everyone else on the road. Property owners owe it to people they invite in. This part is usually easy and rarely the fight.Breach.
Did they fall below what a reasonable person would have done? This is where most cases actually live.Causation.
Did that failure cause this injury? Not a similar injury, not a worse version of something you already had. This one.Damages.
Is there a real, measurable loss? Medical treatment, lost income, future care, and the effect on your life.All four, or there is no claim. A driver who was texting but never hit you owes you nothing. A pothole that wrecked your ankle but belonged to nobody identifiable leaves you without a defendant.
Breach is the whole argument
The legal test is what a reasonable person would have done in the same situation. That sounds vague because it is meant to be. It gets decided on facts, not definitions.
What would a reasonable person actually have done differently?
That is the question your case turns on, and it is answered with documents rather than opinions. A maintenance log showing a walkway was inspected weekly in summer and never in winter. A work order proving a stairwell light was reported a month before you fell. Phone records. A speed estimate from the crush damage. Three prior incident reports at the same doorway.
Adjusters argue about reasonableness in the abstract, because in the abstract everybody was being careful. We argue it with paper.
Causation is where good claims quietly die
This is the element people underestimate, and it is the one insurers attack hardest.
The favorite move is your own medical history. You had a bad back before. You saw a chiropractor in 2019. Therefore this is not their crash, it is your life catching up with you.
The answer is not to hide the history. Washington does not require you to have been in perfect health to be injured by someone else, and aggravating an existing condition is a real harm with real value. What sinks a claim is a gap: three weeks between the collision and the first doctor visit, which lets the other side argue that whatever happened to you happened somewhere in that gap.
See someone early. Tell them everything, including the old injury. A complete record beats a flattering one.
So why does the insurer ask for your medical history going back a decade?
Not to be thorough. They are looking for any earlier mention of the same body part, because one line in a 2019 chart note is enough to argue that your current pain is old news rather than their client's doing. We ask for the same records first, so we already know what is in them before anyone else reads it out to us.
Comparative fault, and why partial blame is not the end
Washington reduces your recovery by your share of the fault instead of barring the claim. Twenty percent yours means eighty percent recoverable.
This changes how you should think about a call from an adjuster. Every question about what you were doing, wearing, looking at, or drinking is aimed at moving that percentage, because a few points is real money on a serious claim.
It also means you should not talk yourself out of a consultation. Being partly responsible is not disqualifying. It is a number to be argued.
When breaking a rule proves the breach for you
Sometimes the reasonable person test is replaced by something much simpler. Where a driver violated a safety rule that exists to protect people like you, and that violation caused the harm the rule was written to prevent, the argument about reasonableness largely disappears.
Running a red light. Turning across a marked bike lane. A landlord ignoring a code requirement for a handrail. Those cases are not automatically won, but they start from a much better place, and identifying one early changes how we build the file.
What this looks like across the cases we handle
Negligence is the same test whether the facts are a highway collision or a wet floor.
In a car accident the breach is usually a driving decision and the causation fight is about your medical history. In premises liability the breach is a failure to inspect or warn, and the whole case often rests on how long the hazard sat there. In a dog bite matter duty and breach can be nearly automatic while damages need careful documenting. In a wrongful death claim all four elements have to be proved by people who are grieving, which is its own kind of difficulty.
Same framework. Very different work.
That is also why we do not hand these files off between practice areas. The person who reads your medical records is the person who argues about them, because the detail that matters in month nine is usually something small that turned up in month one.
How we build it
A free consultation first, where we walk your facts through the four parts and tell you which one is weak. Sometimes that conversation ends with us saying you do not have a claim worth bringing. We would rather say it in week one than bill you for a year to reach the same place.
Then investigation, aimed at whichever element is thinnest. Then negotiation, and litigation if the offer does not reflect the file.
Our fee on injury claims is contingent. No recovery, no legal fee.
One more thing worth saying about the weak element. Clients often assume the strongest part of their case is the part that upsets them most, and those are rarely the same thing. A driver who was rude at the scene and then lied to their insurer feels like the center of the case. It usually is not. The center is a maintenance log, a phone record, or the date of your first medical visit, and none of those are satisfying to talk about.
We would rather spend the first meeting on the boring evidence than on the part that deserves an apology.
Call our Kent office at (206) 575-7562 for a free case assessment
Frequently asked questions
Do I have to prove the other person meant to hurt me?
No. Negligence is about carelessness, not intent. Someone who genuinely did not mean it can still be fully responsible for what it cost you.
The other driver got a ticket. Does that win my case?
It helps, sometimes a great deal, but a citation is not the same as civil liability. It is strong evidence of the breach rather than proof of the whole claim.
I had a similar injury years ago. Is my claim dead?
No. Making an existing condition worse is a recognized harm in Washington. Be upfront about the history, because the insurer will find it and a surprise is far more damaging than a disclosure.
What if I was partly at fault?
You can still recover. Washington reduces the award by your percentage rather than blocking the claim entirely.
How do you prove the other side was unreasonable?
With records, mostly. Maintenance logs, work orders, footage, phone data, prior complaints, and expert analysis where the physical evidence needs interpreting.
Our office is at 555 W Smith St #104, Kent, WA 98032. Call (206) 575-7562 or contact us and we will get you in this week.
Schedule your free negligence claim review in Kent, WA
Contact us for a free case review
