A former NYPD cop is accused of killing his girlfriend.
He's then run over by a subway train and he loses both of his legs.
He then sues the New York City Transit Authority claiming they were responsible for his devastating injuries.
You might be thinking...
The lawsuit alleges multiple theories about how his injury occured.
He also alleges that he has no memory of the incident or how it happened.
First, it says the train operator was careless and didn't see him on the tracks.
It also claims the train operater didn't stop in time.
Another allegation says that someone jostled him on a crowded subway platform.
All of these allegations are different.
All of these allegations create a possibility of how this ex-NYPD cop suffered his injuries.
By the way, the lawsuit also alleges that the injured victim did not cause or contribute to his own injuries.
We can assume from this specific allegation that he's trying to ward off the claim that he was trying to kill himself by jumping in front of a train after he allegedly killed his girlfriend.
There might be multiple causes of how the injury happened.
The law requires that we only show that we are more likely right than wrong that what we are claiming is true in one of the allegations in order to be successful in proving our case.
It may seem far-fetched for an injured victim to be able to claim multiple different theories of how the accident or malpractice occurred.
The fact is that we don't always know the precise manner in which someone suffered an injury.
Maybe you were under anesthesia during surgery and your doctor was careless.
We may not know the precise manner in which a doctor or a surgeon was careless.
That's why the law allows us to claim multiple theories of liability.
During the course of your litigation and discovery, we often learn specific details about your incident that we were not privy to at the outset of your lawsuit.