Washington Answer and Defenses — Motor VehiclAccidenten— - Long In Washington, when a motor vehicle accident occurs, the person being sued (the defendant) has the right to file an answer and assert various defenses to protect their rights and assert their innocence or mitigate their liability. In this detailed description, we will explore the different types of Washington Answer and Defenses in motor vehicle accident cases. 1. Negligence: One common defense is to argue that the plaintiff was also negligent and contributed to the accident. The defendant may claim that the plaintiff's actions, such as speeding, improper lane change, or failure to maintain a safe distance, caused or contributed to the accident. 2. Comparative Fault: Washington follows the principle of comparative fault, meaning that even if the defendant was partially at fault, they may still seek a reduction in damages based on the proportion of fault assigned to the plaintiff. The defendant may argue that the plaintiff's own negligence should reduce the amount of compensation they can receive. 3. Assumption of Risk: The defendant may assert that the plaintiff knowingly and willingly assumed the risks associated with the particular activity or situation, implying the plaintiff is responsible for their injuries. For example, if the plaintiff voluntarily participated in a high-speed race, the defendant could argue that they assumed the risk of a potential accident. 4. Statute of Limitations: The defendant may argue that the plaintiff filed the lawsuit after the expiration of the statute of limitations, which is the legally specified time limit for bringing a lawsuit. In Washington, the statute of limitations for most motor vehicle accident cases is three years from the date of the accident. 5. Lack of Causation: The defendant may contend that their actions or negligence did not directly cause the plaintiff's injuries. They may argue that the plaintiff's injuries were pre-existing or caused by other factors unrelated to the accident. 6. Emergency Doctrine: If the defendant's actions were a result of an emergency situation where they had to make a split-second decision, they might raise the defense of emergency doctrine. This defense asserts that their actions were reasonable and necessary given the circumstances at the time of the accident, thus mitigating their liability. 7. Sudden Medical Emergency: The defendant may argue that they experienced a sudden, unforeseeable medical emergency that caused or contributed to the accident. This defense suggests that the defendant should not be held liable for the accident because they had no prior knowledge or control over the medical condition. 8. Denial of Damages: The defendant might challenge the extent of the damages claimed by the plaintiff. They may argue that the alleged injuries and resulting damages are exaggerated, unsubstantiated, or unrelated to the accident. It is important to note that each case is unique, and the availability and applicability of these defenses can vary depending on the specific circumstances. Consulting with an experienced attorney who specializes in motor vehicle accident cases in Washington is crucial to determine the best defense strategy based on the facts and applicable laws.