Due process of law has always been considered as the basic and the most important right that has been offered to humanity in the advent of a civilized society. The opportunity to be heard, and to give your defenses or arguments before being convicted or penalized for the commission of a wrongful act is what is enshrined in the principle of due process of the law.

The right of a person to have free access to our courts to redress a particular wrong that has been committed is also a basic right that is included in the due process of law clause incorporated in our Constitution.

Thus, regardless of your status in life, so long as you have a right that has actually been deprived or that a wrongful act has been committed against you then access to the courts is an inherent right given for your benefit.

However, is the due process of law clause indeed an avenue that would foster the availing of court process whenever a right has been deprived? Is having access to our courts considered as the "be all" and "end all" of the due process of law provision?

Of course, the answer is negative. The framers of our Constitution deemed it fit to include such an essential and a basic right of an individual to assure that his or her interests are protected. However, due process of law may be attained even if resort to courts of justice is not taken.

The most important aspect in the due process of law provision is the fact that a person in his or her defense or in an argument for his or her cause is given the opportunity to be heard. Hence, any avenue, which would foster and encourage the exercise of said right and would give ample chance for the individual to say his or her point of view is already sufficient compliance to this rule.

Personal injury claims are considered as part of those claims that may be settled without having to resort to the tedious court process, though, at the same time, it complies with the due process of law. Settling personal injury cases out of court, and arriving at a particular settlement agreement is considered as binding enough between the parties involved. This should be promptly executed. The only requisite for the "out-of-court" agreement to be final and binding is that all the parties involved were given sufficient opportunity to air their side before any kind of settlement is approved. Of course, it follows that the settlement arrived at was consented to freely by the parties involved in the personal injury claim.

For more information about train accidents, visit our Los Angeles Attorney Services

About the Author

Atty Gabriel Cosh is a legal advocate and a practitioner of law for over 10 years now. He is also an expert in the field of social legislation and personal injury cases.