As much as one may try to avoid them, accidents and injuries are far too common, and Indiana residents may find themselves injured because of another person’s negligence. Although it does not undo the damage, Indiana law allows a victim to bring a lawsuit against the negligent party to recover compensation for medical bills, pain and suffering, lost wages, and more. In order to successfully recover, the plaintiff must prove in court that the accident was the defendant’s fault and that there was real harm suffered as a result. There may be some cases in which establishing liability in an injury case is straightforward, but typically the process proves to be more complex than it initially appears. To help with this process, a personal injury plaintiff may want to use expert witness testimony to support their case.
Unlike eyewitnesses, who saw the incident in question happen, expert witnesses were not present at the scene of the incident but have relevant expertise that can help explain what happened to the judge or jury. For example, an accident reconstructionist can help explain to the court how an accident happened, or a medical professional could testify as to the severity of the injuries and likely future medical costs. Since expert witnesses offer this valuable information, they are used in many personal injury cases across Indiana.
Due to the prevalence of expert witnesses in personal injury cases, many plaintiffs may think that they need expert witnesses to make their case and that they will lose without them. However, this is not the case. While expert witnesses are helpful, they are not necessary to win every personal injury case, and many cases can be won without them. A recent state case illustrates this fact. According to the court’s written opinion, the victim was an elementary school student who was assaulted and beaten by other students on the playground during recess one afternoon. The victim’s mother brought suit against the city and the Board of Education on her daughter’s behalf, alleging negligence in failing to supervise the schoolchildren during recess. A lower court had previously ruled that, without expert testimony establishing the standard of care that the defendants owed the plaintiff, the plaintiff could not prevail. The court reversed, finding that although there are some cases in which expert testimony may be necessary, it was not necessary in this particular case.