---

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