| name | evidence-liability-summary |
| language | en |
| description | 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. |
| tags | ["analysis","litigation","summarization","summary"] |
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
