Car accidents can cause bodily injury or damage to property and at times both. The car accident law in Bay Area is not different from the relevant state law in the rest of California. While it is desirable to have the at fault person or people acknowledge their errors and cooperate with the injured or the victim, so the insurers can expedite the process of approving claims and grant the rightful compensation for damages caused, more often than not the injured or the victim has to seek legal intervention.

When a person or an entity accepts their fault, the case is simple, and the insurer will follow its standard protocol to pay for the damages. Things get complicated when one has to seek the intervention of a court. It should be noted that not all legal interventions involve the court. A victim can always hire a personal injury lawyer or a practicing attorney of car accident law to get in touch with the person or entity at fault and subsequently their insurer to seek fair compensation. Legal intervention requires proof. Nothing can be established, and no case can be made without irrefutable evidence. Let us explore the different scenarios that can complicate making a case of personal injury under car accident law in the Bay Area, California.

Damage to property can be easily established. If the car or any other movable and immovable property has been damaged during a car accident, you may take photos of the same and use the images as proof. It is also possible to find eyewitnesses in most cases. There may be video footage available from street cameras or the cams installed at private properties. There are security cameras at commercial properties that may have recorded footage of the accident. Such evidences are usually irrefutable. These can serve as the foundation of the case. Personal injury is also easy to prove, provided there is medical evidence.

There is no standard definition or description of personal injury. Any injury caused by a car accident that gets vetted by a doctor or a healthcare professional would qualify as substantial evidence. It is easy to prove broken bones or fractures, injuries caused to soft tissues, brain or spinal cord, bruises or wounds, burns and reflex sympathetic disorder. Post-traumatic stress disorder can also be proved. What cannot be proved is pain and suffering if there was no physical injury to begin with. There can be trauma during the accident, but the victim may not have suffered any injury or one that is diagnosable. It is hard to make a case of personal injury when the bodily damage cannot be substantiated through any medical test or diagnosis. Hence, it is imperative to understand the nature of the case before filing for damages. If the damage is limited to property, then the compensation must be worked out accordingly. If there is no bodily injury, then it is best to avoid claiming for any compensation on such grounds and one must stick to property damage.