In my experience, distinguishing between negligence and comparative fault can really change the game in a claim. For instance, last month I handled a case where the claimant was 30% responsible for the accident, but their perception of liability was completely different. How do you all approach cases like that where the facts get a bit murky?
It’s wild how often perception can skew reality. I once had a case where the claimant thought they were invincible like a superhero, but the facts painted a different picture. How do you balance that perception when communicating with clients?
, it drives me nuts how different people can see the same event. I had a similar case where the claimant was adamant about being the victim but their own actions contributed significantly, just like your 30% example. It helps to lay out all the facts clearly; sometimes a visual breakdown can be real eye-openers.