Phoenix Injury Lawyer Blog

What to Do After an Arizona Bus Crash

April 21, 2021 | By Dave Abels

When a loved one passes away in a tragic accident, the last thing on many family’s minds is bringing a lawsuit. However, when the situation could have been avoided—like accidents due to intoxicated drivers or defective machinery—it is often in the best interest of the loved ones to initiate a lawsuit to financially and emotionally recuperate during such a traumatic time. In Arizona, loved ones can sue the responsible party when the death was caused by a wrongful act or neglect. There are specific requirements in order to bring an Arizona wrongful death lawsuit, along with how plaintiffs can financially recuperate.

For example, according to a recent news source, a person died and others were seriously injured after a tour bus crashed on its way to the Grand Canyon. The tour bus—carrying 48 people, including the driver—rolled and landed on its side, killing one person on the bus. Two others were in critical condition, and seven others were taken to the hospital with less serious injuries.

After such a traumatic accident, the deceased passenger’s loved ones may think about bringing a lawsuit. Depending on the facts surrounding the accident—like if the driver was intoxicated or there was a mechanical issue with the bus—the deceased’s loved ones may be able to bring a wrongful death lawsuit. In Arizona, in order to hold an individual or company liable for a person’s death, the death must be caused by the wrongful act. Additionally, if death had not ensued from the accident, the individual would have been able to file a lawsuit for the injuries he sustained.

Filing an Injury Claim After an Arizona Slip and Fall Accident

March 25, 2021 | By Dave Abels

Property owners and occupiers may be liable for the injuries incurred by other people who enter the property, depending on the parties’ relationship and the circumstances of the case. Under Arizona premises liability law, a party who owns or controls property has a duty of reasonable care in maintaining the property to invitees who come onto the property. An invitee is a person who enters the property for a purpose connected with the owner’s business or for an activity permitted by the owner on the premises. However, owners and occupiers of property are not insurers of other peoples’ safety on their property. In general, in an Arizona premises liability case, a plaintiff must show that a condition posed an unreasonable risk of harm, the defendant knew or should have known that the condition posed an unreasonable risk of harm, the defendant should have anticipated that people would not recognize the danger or would not be protected from the danger, the defendant acted negligently, the plaintiff suffered an injury, and the condition caused the plaintiff’s injury.

In a recent Arizona premises liability case, the court considered whether two subletters on a commercial lease were liable for an individual’s injuries after he fell through the skylight of the building. The owner of the commercial building leased the building to another company, which was responsible for repairing and maintaining the building. The lessee then subleased portions of the building to two other companies. A manager handled the maintenance of the building for the lessee and hired one of the sublessees to perform repairs. Complicating matters further, according to the facts in the opinion, the other sublessee was responsible for maintaining the roof over its section of the warehouse it was subleasing.

The plaintiff was a friend of the manager of one of the sublessees, who would visit the property. On the day of the injury, based on the evidence presented, repairs were being done on the roof, and the plaintiff went on the roof, apparently to help monitor the situation. When he was on the roof, he stepped onto a skylight and fell through it, causing severe injuries. The plaintiff filed a claim against the owner, lessee, and two sublessees. The plaintiff argued in part that the sublessees were possessors of the roof and had a duty to maintain the roof in a safe condition.

The Effect of an Accident Victim’s Failure to Wear a Seat Belt or Helmet in an Arizona Personal Injury Case

March 16, 2021 | By Dave Abels

With sunny and warm weather all year-round, motorcycles are a popular choice for daily transportation and commuting in Arizona. However, riding a motorcycle also comes with its fair share of risks. Indeed, each year, there are dozens of fatal Arizona motorcycle accidents, and hundreds more are injured in these collisions. Like seat belts, helmets have been shown to significantly reduce the chance of serious or fatal injury during an Arizona traffic accident. However, helmets cannot prevent all injuries. Thus, the question often comes up whether someone’s failure to wear a helmet can impact their ability to recover from the other motorists responsible for causing the collision.

When it comes to evidence of an accident victim’s decision not to wear a helmet, Arizona courts liken the situation to a motorist’s failure to wear a seat belt. In Arizona, the law provides limited circumstances under which evidence of an accident victim’s failure to use a seat belt is admissible. Even when such evidence is admissible, it is only relevant to certain questions. For example, Arizona courts have adopted the doctrine of comparative negligence, which considers whether a plaintiff’s damages should be reduced based on the plaintiff’s own negligence. Along those lines, Arizona law states that a plaintiff’s failure to use a seat belt is relevant to whether the accident victim acted reasonably to minimize their injuries. However, this evidence is only allowed if the opposing party can show that the accident victim’s injury would not have occurred, or would have been lessened, had the seat belt been used. Otherwise, evidence of seat belt non-use is inadmissible.

Arizona law treats an accident victim’s failure to wear a helmet in the same manner as a failure to wear a seat belt when considering the evidence in personal injury claims. Thus, if the defendant can prove that an accident victim’s injuries would have either been prevented or lessened had they been wearing a helmet, evidence of the victim’s failure to wear a helmet may be admissible. However, this evidence still would not bar a personal injury claim.

What Is a Superseding Cause in a Phoenix Personal Injury Case?

November 2, 2020 | By Dave Abels

In Arizona personal injury cases, a defendant can be held liable for another’s injuries if the accident would not have occurred without the defendant’s negligent act. However, there are ways a defendant may try and escape liability. One such way is by arguing there was a superseding incident caused by another person that also contributed to the injury. A superseding cause is an intervening act that the law considers sufficient enough to override the initial negligence and exonerate that person from liability.

In a recent case discussing superseding causation, a state appellate court was recently tasked with determining whether a bar could be held liable for over-serving a man who later got into a car accident, even though he went home and took a nap before getting into the wreck. In many states, including Arizona, a bar can be held responsible for the actions of a patron after they have left the bar if they did not stop them from driving while intoxicated. The bar tried to argue that going home and taking a nap constituted a superseding cause, while the plaintiff, the person injured in the car accident, claimed that the bar was still at fault. The court ultimately ruled that going home was a superseding cause that relieved the bar of liability for the accident.

Superseding cause explained

Recovering from an Arizona Hit And Run Accident

July 27, 2020 | By Dave Abels

Driving on any road can mean that danger is looming just around the corner. But sometimes, no matter how much caution a driver exercises, they cannot put a stop to motorists who flee the scene after an accident has occurred. Those drivers responsible for Phoenix hit and runs, especially when the accidents are fatal or cause severe injury, must be held accountable.

In a recent news report, a serious car accident occurred in Phoenix, leaving one pedestrian dead and another seriously injured. The incident occurred when the two pedestrians were struck by a car along Interstate 17 at around 2:45am. In the wake of the collision, a young woman was declared dead at the scene after being struck by the car, and another was severely injured. The driver was on her way home from meeting friends at the time of the collision and fled the scene.

Arizona Department of Public Safety officials reported that the driver who fled the accident is being charged with failure to remain at the scene of a fatal collision. Although it’s unclear why the two injured individuals who were on the freeway at the time of the accident, DPS officials reported that impairment of the motorist was not a factor in the fatal crash and that the driver had a suspended license at the time of the incident.

Arizona Supreme Court Considers Meaning of State Recreational Use Statute in Recent Premises Liability Case

June 23, 2020 | By Dave Abels

The state law of Arizona allows someone injured on someone else’s property to file a civil negligence suit against the owner to recover for their injuries. These suits are referred to as premises liability suits. However, some individuals are granted immunity from these suits through Arizona’s recreational use statute, A.R.S. section 33-1551. This statute provides that “a public or private owner, easement holder, lessee, tenant, manager or occupant of premises is not liable to a recreational or educational user except on a showing that [they were] guilty of wilful, malicious or grossly negligent conduct that was a direct cause of the injury to the recreational or educational user.” This statute has been used by defendants in premises liability suits to get the suit against them dismissed. However, it is not totally clear who the statute applies to, and sometimes courts must determine whether a defendant falls into one of the groups granted immunity.

The Arizona Supreme Court recently considered the meaning of the term “manager” under the statute in a case brought against an amusement park operator. According to the court’s written opinion, the defendant had an agreement with the City of Phoenix to operate an amusement park known as Enchanted Island. Under this agreement, they also were allowed to use an unfenced area adjacent to Enchanted Island known as the “piñata area,” which they were responsible for maintaining. The plaintiff paid the defendant to host her child’s birthday party at Enchanted Island and brought a piñata to said party. The defendant directed her to the piñata area, but while walking through it, the plaintiff fell, breaking her ankle and injuring her arm. According to her, she fell because she stepped on a covered sprinkler-head divot, and the plaintiff then sued the defendant for premises liability. The defendant moved for summary judgment, claiming that A.R.S. section 33-1551 granted them recreational immunity. Both the trial court and the appellate court agreed, but the plaintiff appealed all the way to the Arizona Supreme Court.

In front of the Arizona Supreme Court, the case came down to whether or not the defendant was a “manager” of the piñata area at the time the plaintiff fell. The defendant asserted that because they maintained the area they were indeed a manager, but the court disagreed. Instead, the court found that in order to be a manager of an area, one has to be able to control the public’s access to the land. Because the defendant could not do so, but was only allowed to use it and in charge of maintaining it, they could not be considered a manager. As such, the court reversed the grant of summary judgment, allowing the plaintiff to move forward in her suit against the defendant.

Court Finds Plaintiff Is Not Bound by Arbitration Agreement in Arizona Personal Injury Lawsuit

May 22, 2020 | By Dave Abels

Recently, a state appellate court issued an opinion in an Arizona wrongful death lawsuit brought on behalf of a nursing home resident who died after falling out of a wheelchair. According to the court’s opinion, the plaintiff’s mother was admitted to the nursing home in 2013. At admission, the plaintiff, acting as the “responsible party,” signed the forms for his mother because she was suffering from various cognitive and physical impairments. Included in the admissions agreement was an arbitration clause for “any dispute as to medical malpractice.” The issue on appeal was whether the plaintiff’s cause of action falls under medical malpractice and if the arbitration clause bound him.

The incident giving rise to the action occurred when the woman was returning to her room after breakfast. A certified nursing assistant was pushing the woman’s wheelchair when the woman’s foot got caught in a loose cord. The entanglement caused the woman to go flying out of her wheelchair head-first onto the floor, breaking her neck upon impact. The woman died from her injuries several days later. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the nursing home, alleging that they were negligent and liable for his mother’s wrongful death. The nursing home moved to compel arbitration, arguing that although on its face the claim seemed like a negligence action, it was actually a medical malpractice claim.

Arizona law provides that the primary prerequisite to compelling arbitration is an actual agreement to do so. When there is a disagreement about whether the parties agreed to arbitrate, the courts will look to the parties’ intent by evaluating the language of the agreement. In this case, the arbitration clause defines “medical malpractice” as a dispute related to medical services. Further, the legislature defines “medical services” as actions that relate to medical care and are performed at the direction of healthcare professionals.

Head-On Semi Truck Crash Near Arizona Border Kills One, Injures Five

May 5, 2020 | By Dave Abels

An early-morning New Mexico truck accident that occurred last month on Interstate 40 between the border of Arizona and New Mexico resulted in a single fatality and several serious injuries. According to a local news report covering the tragic accident, the collision was caused when a truck driver, heading from Arizona toward Albuquerque on I-40, crossed the center line into oncoming traffic.

As the truck entered oncoming traffic, the vehicle rolled. The initial accident caused a chain-reaction, ultimately involving at least three other vehicles.

Truck Accidents Can Cause Serious Injuries

Phoenix Family Faces Astronomical Medical Costs After Head-On Collision with Truck

April 14, 2020 | By Dave Abels

Recently, a news report provided an update on a devastating Phoenix car accident between a truck and a sedan carrying a couple and their daughter. The couple was waiting to make a left turn after picking up their daughter from a relative’s home. The child was in a child-safety seat in between the parents in the front seat. When the light turned yellow, and traffic began to wane, the man started to make his turn. The man’s girlfriend screamed when she looked up from her phone and noticed a truck barreling towards them. The driver did not have time to stop, and the truck collided into their vehicle.

The couple and their child were all taken to a local hospital, and the woman and her daughter remained unconscious for several days. After the woman awoke from her coma, she discovered that her daughter was at a different hospital and remained in a medically induced coma. Fortunately, tests revealed that the daughter did not suffer any permanent brain damage; however, she remained in a sedative state as her cerebral cortex healed. Despite support from their family and the community, the family is facing a long road of psychological and physical therapy. The woman revealed that although she is grateful for the medical benefits her employer provides, the family is facing astronomical medical bills.

Many accident victims rely on medical insurance and car insurance coverage to help them pay the significant medical costs often associated with serious car accidents. Car accident victims may face payments related to emergency treatment, vehicle storage or repair, surgeries, hospital stays, physical rehabilitation, prescription and copays, psychological treatment, and lost wages.

Pursuing a Claim for Compensation Following an Arizona Truck Accident

February 17, 2020 | By Dave Abels

Being involved in an accident with a semi-truck or other large vehicle can feel like a nightmare to accident victims and their families. Not only are Arizona truck accidents more likely to cause serious injury or death than other auto accidents, but navigating the complex web of parties and companies who may be responsible for damages can be a daunting task, especially when the truck driver does not admit fault for the crash. A recently published local news article helps explain what is necessary for victims of an Arizona truck accident to compile to help pursue their case.

As noted in the report, there are at least ten pieces of information that should be gathered after an accident to help an accident victim pursue an Arizona semi-truck accident lawsuit. Because of the complexities of the trucking and insurance industries, there could be four or more parties that must be dealt with in the aftermath of an accident, including the truck driver, the trucking company, the shipping company, and any insurance companies offering coverage on the truck or other vehicles involved in a crash.

Immediately after an accident involving a semi-truck, the important information to gather includes the names and identities of all parties and companies with vehicles involved in the crash as well as the insurance information for any vehicles involved. Law enforcement should be called to document the crash and create a case number that can be used in a later claim. Additionally, accident victims should obtain a photograph of the license plate of the truck involved, as well as photos or videos of any damage to all vehicles, any skid marks or debris, as well as documentation of other hazards or factors that could have contributed to the crash. Any eyewitness accounts of the crash should be taken, along with the names and contact information of the witnesses, should their testimony be required at a later time.