We are all familiar with both the sensation of pain and the experience of suffering. That's not a secret at all. However, the phrase "pain and suffering" has a very particular connotation in the legal system. In the context of legal proceedings for personal injuries, such as those with automobile collisions. These injuries, by the way, maybe long-term or short-term, and it may take some time after the event that caused them to become apparent whether or not they are permanent.

To seek compensation for "general damages" in a lawsuit or from an insurance company settlement, pain and suffering are generally included as one of the types of "special damages." And if the accident was someone else's responsibility, the victim of the tragedy has every right to demand compensation for their losses. But what if you were the one who caused the accident?

In legal parlance, "pain and suffering" refers to the mental, emotional, and bodily anguish that a person experiences as a direct consequence of an event. It encompasses the physical pain brought on by real injuries (such as shattered bones, burns, pains, and bruises) and the mental pain that comes with it.

Who is Responsible for Paying for Pain and Suffering in an Automobile Accident?

What Exactly Is Covered by Your Insurance Company?

If you are found to be at fault in a vehicle accident, your insurance company will pay for your medical bills and perhaps for your lost income, depending on the provisions of your policy; nevertheless, you will not be compensated for the pain and suffering that you have had as a result of the accident.

What Types of Damages Are Covered by the Other Party's Insurance

Now things are going to start becoming more complex. Imagine that you are involved in a car accident that results in injuries and that the other driver is also at blame for the collision, but only to a lesser extent than you are. Is it possible for you to get compensation from the other motorist for the pain and suffering you endured? The answer is that it is dependent on the location where the accident took place. You could be lucky if you live in a state that follows either the "pure comparative fault" or the "modified comparative fault" system. It is impossible to do so if you are in a condition of "pure contributory negligence."

The Negligent Contributing States In Their Totality

In a state that adheres to the principle of "pure contributory negligence," you will not be able to get compensation for any losses (including pain and suffering) if you are even partly to blame for the incident, regardless of the degree to which you contributed to the cause of the accident even if it's only 1%. There are just a handful of states that adhere to the legal principle of pure contributory negligence.

Purely Comparative Fault States

In a state that adheres to the principle of "pure comparative fault," each party to an accident is held financially responsible for the other party's damages in direct proportion to the degree to which they contributed to causing the accident. Imagine, for instance, if you were involved in a collision that was found to be 80% of your responsibility, while the other motorist was found to be 20% responsible for the incident. In a state that operates on the principle of pure comparative blame, you have the legal right to recover damages (including compensation for your pain and suffering) from the other motorist. Still, your award will be limited to 20% of the total damages.

Comparative Modifications Made to the Fault States

The "modified comparative fault" system is the one that is used in every other state. If you are found to be more at blame for an accident than the other motorist, you will not be able to recover any damages from them in these states. The percentage of fault ranges from 50% in certain jurisdictions to 51% in others. You are eligible to file a claim for damages if, on the other hand, the other motorist was more at fault. However, your damages will be decreased by your degree of guilt, just as they would be in jurisdictions that strictly adhere to the principle of pure comparative blame.

The explanations of vicarious liability and comparative blame provided before are of a general character, and the regulations that apply to each state are different. South Dakota utilizes a kind of comparative negligence unheard of in the rest of the country. This serves to confound matters further. Check the relevant legislation in your state to determine the situation's specifics.