shield_lock
JinDaGe
← Back to skills
extension
Category: Content & MediaNo API key required

evidence-liability-summary

Generates a structured evidence and liability summary for plaintiff-side personal injury negligence claims. Triggers when the user needs liability analysis, negligence element breakdowns, evidence cataloging with gap identification, discovery assessment, or pre-trial case evaluation.

personAuthor: jakexiaohubgithub
open_in_newRepositorydownloadDownload package

Evidence & Liability Summary

Synthesizes collected evidence into a structured negligence liability analysis (duty, breach, causation, damages) for plaintiff-side personal injury litigation.

Prerequisites

Gather before starting:

  • Incident facts — date, time, location, parties, basic chronology
  • Evidence collected — documents, witness statements, photos/video, medical records, digital evidence
  • Medical records — treatment history, bills, prognosis, expert reports if available
  • Jurisdiction — governing state/federal law
  • Defendant info — identity, relationship to plaintiff, applicable standard of care

Workflow

Mark the output PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL — ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT.

Step 1 — Case Overview

| Element | Content | |---|---| | Parties | All parties by legal designation (plaintiff, defendant, third parties) | | Incident | Date, time, location, circumstances | | Chronology | Pre-incident through aftermath timeline | | Gaps | Timeline gaps or inconsistencies needing investigation |

Write for a lawyer unfamiliar with the matter.

Step 2 — Evidence Catalog

For each item, record:

| Field | Description | |---|---| | Exhibit # | Unique identifier | | Category | Documentary / Testimonial / Physical / Digital | | Date | Creation or collection date | | Source | Custodian or origin | | Description | Brief content summary | | Relevance | High / Medium / Low probative value | | Issues | Privilege, hearsay, authentication, admissibility concerns |

Flag chain-of-custody gaps, authentication needs, compelling evidence, and discovery gaps.

Step 3 — Negligence Element Analysis

A. Duty of Care

  • Source: statute, regulation, professional standard, common law, special relationship
  • Standard: reasonable person, industry standard, professional code — cite authority
  • Defense anticipation: expected denial of duty with counter-analysis

B. Breach of Duty

  • Identify specific acts/omissions constituting breach
  • Map each to supporting evidence by exhibit #
  • Compare conduct against applicable standard
  • Reference expert testimony where technical knowledge required
  • Address anticipated defenses (industry compliance, regulatory adherence)

C. Causation

| Type | Test | Analysis | |---|---|---| | Actual (cause-in-fact) | "But for" test | Address alternative causes; show substantial factor | | Proximate (legal cause) | Foreseeability | Address superseding/intervening causes | | Multiple parties | Comparative fault / joint & several | Apportion under governing law if applicable |

D. Damages

| Category | Items | |---|---| | Economic | Past/future medical expenses, lost wages, lost earning capacity, property damage | | Non-economic | Pain and suffering, emotional distress, loss of enjoyment of life, loss of consortium | | Total | Low–high range |

  • Support amounts with bills, employment records, estimates, expert testimony
  • Include present-value calculations for future damages
  • Address mitigation and pre-existing conditions

Step 4 — Conclusions & Recommendations

Rate each element:

| Element | Strength (Strong / Moderate / Weak) | Key Risk | |---|---|---| | Duty | | | | Breach | | | | Causation | | | | Damages | | |

Then provide:

  • Case valuation range with comparable verdict/settlement basis
  • Discovery gaps and recommended next steps
  • Expert witnesses to retain
  • Settlement target range and strategy
  • Motion practice opportunities
  • Statute of limitations status and procedural deadlines
  • Risk assessment — recommend proceed / settle / ADR

Step 5 — References

  • Legal authorities in Bluebook format
  • Evidence cross-reference table (exhibit #, description, file location)
  • Expert reports (name, credentials, date, key opinions)

Pitfalls & Checks

  • Every factual assertion must trace to a specific exhibit — no unsupported conclusions
  • Use [VERIFY] for any citation not confirmed against primary sources
  • Address jurisdiction-specific negligence standards (comparative vs. contributory)
  • Acknowledge weaknesses candidly — plaintiff-side framing must still be honest about defense arguments
  • Consider ethical obligations regarding candor in merit evaluation