Warning

Info

Warning

Info

Warning

Info

LSDefine

Simple English definitions for legal terms

consequential injury

Read a random definition: lienor

A quick definition of consequential injury:

Consequential injury is when something bad happens as a result of another bad thing happening. For example, if a car accident causes you to miss work and lose money, that's a consequential injury. It's like a chain reaction of bad things. This is different from direct injury, which is when something bad happens right away because of an event, like getting hurt in the car accident itself. Consequential injury can be hard to predict and can cause a lot of problems, but it's important to understand when dealing with insurance or legal issues.

A more thorough explanation:

Consequential injury refers to a type of loss that arises from the results of damage rather than from the damage itself. It is also known as consequential loss. This type of loss is different from direct loss, which results immediately and proximately from an event.

For example, if a person's car is damaged in an accident, the direct loss would be the cost of repairing the car. However, if the person is unable to use the car for work and loses income as a result, that would be a consequential loss.

Another example of consequential loss is when a business suffers a loss of profits due to a fire that damages its premises. The direct loss would be the cost of repairing the damage, while the consequential loss would be the lost profits.

It is important to note that consequential losses can be either proximate or remote. Proximate losses are the natural and probable effect of the wrongful conduct, while remote losses are not.

consequential economic loss | consequentialism

Warning

Info

General

General chat about the legal profession.
main_chatroom
👍 Chat vibe: 0 👎
Help us make LSD better!
Tell us what's important to you
texaslawhopefully
22:30
@KnowledgeableRitzyWasp: That all sounds great. It sounds like it has fairly diverse cuisine for a smaller city
yeah there are so many good cuisines in ithaca
renard99
22:31
@lilypadfrog: that’s a pity I’da be liking them all
texaslawhopefully
22:31
Only food I’m going to miss for sure if I leave Texas is texmex
22:31
waspy hasnt had thai food in ithaca yet. ithaca thai is so good
^^^^ truuuuuu
22:32
there are two major thai places and they have very similar names bc a divorced husband and wife own them lol
22:32
personally i think taste of thai is better than taste of thai express but thats just me
i had pho tho and it was really good and huge portions
texaslawhopefully
22:32
Glad they have good Thai food, I love Thai food! Can’t wait to visit :)
22:33
when tex goes to ithaca i want to come
Dkk
22:34
Crying Tiger, best Thai dish.
damn im so hungry all i had today was a curry tonkatsu and buldak
and it was a lil baby noodle cup
vvv hungry
22:36
curry tonkatsu so yummeh
22:36
whats even open rn? pizza?
CTB is it i think
22:37
is collegetown pizza not open
22:37
i used to get a slice from there or wings over at like 1am after my shift at the restaurant
Dkk
22:48
Ross Ulbricht free. God Bless Trump. Huge win.
JeremyFragrance
22:54
agreed
texaslawhopefully
22:55
This is an interesting read: https://thedispatch.com/article/birthright-citizenship-trump-implications/
Dkk
23:01
I mean, idk how it's possible to end birth right citizenship without amending the constitution because to me the 14th amendment is pretty clear about it.
ross ulbricht tried to hire a hitman to kill 5 people
i am not that sympathetic to him
Dkk
23:04
@KnowledgeableRitzyWasp: That might have been an FBI agent. It was most likely him and he was most likely doing it to retrieve stolen funds that corrupt FBI agents stole, but yeah moral gray area but me personally, cool with hitmen. It's not like it is uncommon to hire hitmen. I don't think the action itself is necessarily wrong but the intent behind it can be.
Dkk
23:05
Like, Boeing whistblowers being killed by hitmen = wrong but a guy hiring hitmen to retrieve stolen funds = good to me.
texaslawhopefully
23:05
@Dkk: Yeah, for sure. My guess is it'll go to SCOTUS and it'll be 8-1 or 7-2, saying that EO was unconstitutional.
Dkk
23:06
Indeed. I need a count for how many exectuive orders he has signed and how many already have pending lawsuits.
LSD+ is ad-free, with DMs, discounts, case briefs & more.