–Injury Lawyers

If you’ve been harmed in a car accident scenario in which the defendant-driver fled the scene of the accident — known colloquially as a “hit and run” — then you may be entitled to damages, though litigation may be more complicated than a standard car accident case.  In a hit and run lawsuit, there are a number of unique challenges and opportunities to keep in mind when considering the dispute process.

Let’s take a closer look.

Identifying the Defendant

Perhaps the most significant problem facing injured plaintiffs in hit and run accidents is identifying the defendant in the wake of the accident.  If the defendant gets away without leaving a “trail,” then you might not have an opportunity to litigate your claims against them and obtain the compensation you deserve.

Given the risk of a defendant successfully avoiding a lawsuit in a hit and run accident, it’s important to consult a skilled attorney as early as possible — your attorney will work with expert investigators and various stakeholders (i.e., law enforcement, businesses located near the accident) to secure evidence, such as video footage and traffic photos, to secure information that could be used to identify and track down the defendant.

Implied Fault

When the defendant flees the scene of the accident, they are painting themselves as the liable party, even if their negligence is questionable.  If you can identify the defendant-driver and bring an action against them, they will be fundamentally disadvantaged throughout the litigation process, as they must account for the fact that a jury will have a negative perception of them.

Punitive Damages Availability

When the defendant flees the scene (assuming that they did not do so in response to physical violence or threats of harm), they are engaging in willful misconduct.  As such, under Arizona law, the court may choose to award bonus punitive damages to punish the defendant for their egregious conduct, and to discourage others from similar hit and run conduct.

Punitive damages can raise the damages substantially.  If you are entitled to recover $100,000 in compensatory damages (i.e., medical expenses, wage loss, pain and suffering, etc.), then your punitive damages could be a three-times multiple of those damages, or $300,000, for $400,000 in total.  If you can establish the possibility of punitive damages, the defendant is very likely to negotiate a favorable settlement early to avoid the risk of being saddled with such a large financial burden.

Contact an Experienced Phoenix Car Accident Lawyer to Schedule a Free Consultation

At Hirsch & Lyon, our attorneys have decades of experience litigating claims on behalf of those who have suffered injuries in Arizona car accidents that were caused due to the fault of another party.

Our team is well-positioned to represent you at every stage of the litigation process, from identifying the defendant to negotiating a settlement, to advancing the case to trial if necessary.

Ready to learn more about your claims and what you can do to move forward on the road to recovery?  We encourage you to call 602-535-1900 or submit an online case evaluation form to schedule a free and confidential consultation with a skilled Phoenix car accident lawyer at Hirsch & Lyon today.

If you’ve injured in an accident due to a commercial truck driver’s negligence, then Arizona law may entitle you to significant compensation.

When litigating a claim against a commercial truck driver — and thanks to the application of vicarious liability principles, their employer — you may find that establishing negligence is somewhat “easier” to do than litigating a claim against a non-commercial driver.  As a general rule, professionals in all walks of life are held to a stricter standard of care in skill/knowledge areas than the average person.

Let’s take a quick peek at why this dynamic exists.

Negligence Basics and the Standard of Care

In order to prove the defendant’s negligence, you will have to show that they violated the applicable standard of care under the circumstances, and that in doing so, they substantially contributed to your injuries.  The standard of care (in truck accidents and in other contexts) is that of a reasonable person under the same or similar circumstances.

How does this work?

When a defendant injures you in an accident, for example, the court will evaluate what a reasonably prudent person would have done had they been put in the same or similar circumstances.  This is a rather “fuzzy” determination, depending on the case.  Suppose that a driver gets into a collision after quickly changing the channel on their radio player — it may not be obvious that a reasonably prudent person under the same or similar circumstances would not have taken their eyes off the road for a second to change the station.

Commercial drivers (i.e., truckers) may be held to a higher standard due to their role as professionals.

Professional Skillset and Knowledge Play a Significant Role

Negligence is a violation of the standard of care, which is a measure of what a reasonably prudent person would have done under the same or similar circumstances, but there’s an important caveat — those circumstances are not just external, but also internal.

If the defendant is a professional truck driver with a commercial license and years of experience and specialized training, then the jury is well within their rights to evaluate that information with regard to the standard of care.  Fairly evaluating a reasonably prudent person under the same or similar circumstances must necessarily involve a professional driver, as those are the circumstances applicable to the case.  If the defendant is driving an eighteen wheeler truck, for example, it would hardly be representative of the case at-hand for the court to compare the defendant to an imagined “non-commercial driver” who is operating the same vehicle under the same road conditions.

Thus, the advanced training and knowledge of the commercial trucker defendant is almost certainly going to be advantageous for your claims, as the defendant will naturally be expected to exercise a higher level of caution and skill.

Schedule a Free Consultation With an Experienced Phoenix Truck Accident Lawyer

Hirsch & Lyon is a boutique personal injury litigation firm located in Phoenix, AZ, and serving injured plaintiffs throughout the state of Arizona.

We have extensive experience litigating claims on behalf of those who have been harmed due to the fault of another in various motor vehicle accident scenarios, from truck accidents to car accidents — in fact, we exclusively handle such disputes.  Our focus on personal injury cases makes us especially well-equipped to navigate the complexities of truck accident litigation (involving commercial truck drivers and their employers) and to secure maximum compensation for our clients.

If you’d like to learn more about your claims and how best to move forward on the road to recovery, call 602-535-1900 or send us a message through our website to schedule a free and confidential consultation with a skilled Phoenix truck accident lawyer at Hirsch & Lyon today.

Ridesharing is a form of transportation in which the customer connects to an independent driver who is registered on a mobile app.  The customer requests a ride, and the app links up one of the rideshare drivers to the customer.  The company takes a cut of the ride’s overall cost.

In Arizona, and elsewhere, ridesharing services (such as Uber and Lyft) have become increasingly common over the years.  Still, despite its ubiquity, many injured plaintiffs are unsure of their rights under the law and how they can secure adequate damages in a rideshare accident scenario (car, truck, etc.).  If you’ve been injured in an accident involving a rideshare vehicle, then you may be entitled to damages, but the dispute may be complicated by a number of issues.

Let’s take a peek at some of the basics.

Insurance Coverage

Whether you are likely to receive damages will depend — in many cases — on the insurance coverage.  In Arizona, rideshare companies such as Uber and Lyft pay for liability insurance coverage of up to $1 million to cover accidents involving their drivers.  This liability insurance may vary depending on the circumstances.

For example, suppose that you are riding as a passenger in an Uber when the driver crashes the car.  Given that the driver had already picked you up and was taking you to your destination, you would be entitled to the full $1 million of insurance coverage.

Now, if a driver has not yet picked their passenger up, but is on his way to do so when he injures someone, then a reduced amount of liability coverage will apply (i.e., $100,000 in most rideshare insurance policies).

Suing the Rideshare Company

If you’ve been injured by a rideshare driver, then you may want to bring an action against the company directly.  The problem, however, is that Arizona law defines Uber and Lyft drivers as independent contractors.  As such, you cannot apply vicarious liability principles to rideshare companies.  If you wish to impose liability on a rideshare company directly, you’ll have to prove that they contributed to your injuries through independent negligence.

For example, suppose that you are injured by a rideshare driver who is operating their vehicle extremely recklessly.  You later discover that the driver does not have a license.  After further investigation, it turns out that the rideshare company did not do their due diligence and determine whether the driver had an active license before allowing them to register and use the service to pick up customers.  Given their inability to perform an adequate background check, you would likely have a negligence claim against the company for damages.

Contact Hirsch & Lyon for a Free Consultation With an Experienced Phoenix Car Accident Lawyer

Here at Hirsch & Lyon, our attorneys have substantial experience litigating car accident claims — including rideshare-related accidents — on behalf of those who have been injured due to the negligence, recklessness, or intentional misconduct of another party.  In fact, unlike many of our competitors, our firm exclusively provides legal services to those who are involved in a motor vehicle accident dispute, giving us depth of insight into the unique issues typical of such litigation.

We are capable of anticipating how the opposing counsel is likely to react to our claims, and how best to circumvent the barriers raised over the course of litigation.  Our specialized approach has served us well over the years — we have recovered over $100 million in damages for our clients, in trial verdicts and negotiated settlements.

Call 602-535-1900 or send us a message through our website to schedule a free and confidential consultation with an experienced Phoenix car accident lawyer at Hirsch & Lyon today.

Though truck accident claims can be a challenge to litigate, there are a number of unique opportunities available to those who are plaintiffs in such litigation.

For example, if you’ve been injured in an accident involving a commercial trucker, then you could be entitled to bring an action for damages against their employer pursuant to vicarious liability principles.

Among these various opportunities is the electronic logging device (ELD) that has been federally mandated for commercial drivers who are required to prepare hours-of-service records for their work.

Let’s take a closer look.

What is an Electronic Logging Device?

Recently, federal legislation (that has been in the works since 2012) has come into effect.  The legislation mandates that an ELD be installed for commercial drivers — including truckers — to keep track of various data points that are intended to help manage driver “cheating” and minimize the safety risks typical of the industry, such as over-scheduling.  An ELD keeps track of a driver’s hours logged (and speed), among other data.

How does an ELD help?

Drivers cannot drive more than 11 hours a day, nor can they work more than 14 hours a day total.  Previously, drivers could “fudge the numbers” on their paper sheets by logging less than they actually worked, thus enabling them to travel a farther distance (so that they can be eligible for compensation bonuses) while remaining within the hourly maximum.  Now, with the ELD system in place, commercial drivers cannot log more than the maximum amount.  If they do, then the system will record the violation.

Multiple Avenues for Liability

As the plaintiff, you can utilize the ELD data in a multitude of ways to establish liability.

Suppose that you are attempting to show that the driver was negligent, and therefore liable for your injuries.  After evaluating the ELD data, you are able to demonstrate that the driver was operating their truck at an excessive speed at the time of the accident.  Alternatively, you might be able to show that the driver had violated their maximum hourly quota for the day and were therefore “fatigued,” contributing to the accident.

There may also be avenues for liability against the employer.  Following the implementation of ELD systems, many commercial truckers are being incentivized to drive even faster in order to achieve their mileage bonuses.  If the employer is aware that truckers are driving recklessly to satisfy a company bonus, then that employer may be held liable for not changing the incentive structure or retraining truckers appropriately.

Schedule a Free Consultation With an Experienced Phoenix Truck Accident Lawyer

Here at Hirsch & Lyon, our attorneys have decades of experience advocating on behalf of those who have suffered serious injuries in various motor vehicle accidents, including truck accidents.

Given the impact forces associated with truck collisions, such accidents can quite easily lead to catastrophic injuries.  We are well aware of how much victims rely on successful litigation to recover damages that could help them pay off expenses and establish a sense of “normalcy” in their life once again.  As such, we invest a great deal of time into understanding every dispute and are relentless in representing the interests of our clients at every stage of the litigation process.  This client-centered approach has helped us recover over $100 million in damages since our founding.

Call 602-535-1900 or send us an online message to schedule a free and confidential consultation with an experienced Phoenix truck accident lawyer at Hirsch & Lyon today.  We look forward to assisting you.

Phoenix Truck Accident Lawyer

In the realm of motor vehicle accidents, truck accidents are uniquely dangerous — particularly those that involve large trucks that may be loaded with cargo.  Trucks tend to be heavier than other vehicles, and as such, the impact forces in an accident are likely to be much more severe.  The aggregate force of impact can lead to serious (if not catastrophic) injuries or even death.

Truck accidents can occur for a number of reasons, but among the more common types of truck accidents are those that are caused by improper cargo loading.  Improper cargo loading involves cargo that is not adequately secured (and is therefore prone to sliding or tumbling in the back of the truck), or cargo that has been placed in such a way that it creates a structural imbalance.

Let’s examine this issue more closely.

Improper Cargo Loading Can Create a Substantial Rollover Accident Risk

Improper cargo loading — whether the cargo has not been secured properly or has been placed in a manner that creates a fundamental weight imbalance — can lead to a rollover accident in many cases, particularly situations where the driver is taking a sharp turn.

Drivers may be additionally liable for failing to take into account their cargo load.  For example, if a truck driver is carrying a full load of cargo, they should be careful to slow down when taking turns and shifting lanes so as not to create a rollover accident.  Drivers must be considerate of the unique circumstances under which they are operating the vehicle.  Failure to do so could lead to significant civil liability.

Multiple Defendants May Be Liable, Depending on the Circumstances

Improper cargo loading may expose multiple defendants to civil liability, depending on the circumstances surrounding the accident.  Parties whose negligence may have contributed to improper cargo loading include, but are not necessarily limited, to the following:

• Driver (who may not have properly evaluated the balance of cargo in their vehicle before setting off on their journey)
• Physical laborers who loaded the cargo itself (who may have failed to follow the requisite procedures/plans ensuring that the cargo was properly loaded in a balanced manner)
• Supervisors who failed to properly guide the cargo loading workers
• Shipping company (who may not have established adequate protocols to limit the risk of improper cargo loading)
• And more

This can be an incredible opportunity for the injured plaintiff, as it enables the plaintiff to secure a payout from multiple different sources in the event that one of the defendants does not have the resources to cover their damages in full.

Schedule a Free and Confidential Consultation With an Experienced Phoenix Truck Accident Lawyer

Here at Hirsch & Lyon, our attorneys have decades of experience representing the interests of those who have been injured in truck accidents, including those that resulted from improper cargo loading.  Improper cargo loading in the truck accident context exposes others on the roadways to an excessive and unreasonable risk of harm — trucks are already at a heightened risk of a rollover accident, and improper cargo loading can further exacerbate this risk.

We have a results-oriented approach to litigation.  It is our belief that aggressive and relentless representation is critical to securing justice, particularly in cases where the defendant is uncooperative or otherwise hostile to the client.  This approach has paid dividends over the years.  We have litigated numerous motor vehicle accident claims and have successfully obtained favorable verdicts and settlements on behalf of injured clients, with over $100 million recovered in total.

Interested?

Call 602-535-1900 or submit an online case evaluation form to schedule a free, confidential, and no-obligation consultation with an experienced Phoenix truck accident lawyer at Hirsch & Lyon today.

Phoenix Motorcycle Accident Attorneys

Motorcyclists have good reason to be paranoid while operating their vehicles on America’s roadways.  Motorcycle accidents — in Arizona and elsewhere — are often caused by car and truck drivers who fail to drive in a manner that accounts for the possibility of two-wheelers on the road, or who otherwise fail to “notice” the presence of a two-wheeler.  This can expose motorcyclists to an unreasonable risk of harm.

Given the risks, it’s not surprising that many motorcyclists wonder whether they have an affirmative responsibility or duty to make themselves more (in the visual and auditory sense) obvious to others.

Let’s explore some of the basics for a clearer understanding.

Motorcyclists Must Exercise Reasonable Care — There is No Special Responsibility to Make Oneself Obvious

Motorcyclists have no affirmative responsibility or duty to make themselves obvious.  In fact, it could be reasonably argued that attempts to make themselves more visible or otherwise obvious to other vehicles could expose the motorcyclist to additional risks of harm.  For example, many motorcyclists swerve within their lane to make themselves more visible to passing cars, but this activity can confuse other drivers — they may not be aware that you are intending to stay in your own lane.

As a motorcyclist, your mind should be focused on exercising reasonable care given the circumstances.  If the actions necessitated by the circumstances involve making yourself obvious, then that would justify you doing so.  Otherwise, it’s not required to take additional or special actions to make yourself obvious.

For example, suppose that a car is shifting into your lane.  The driver does not realize that they are about to collide with you.  Now, given the circumstances, you should attempt to move out of the way and honk your horn to alert the driver to your presence.  Though the driver is clearly negligent, the circumstances are such that you might be found contributorily negligent if you failed to take action to make your presence known by honking.

On the other hand, if you’re riding in your lane and there is no immediate scenario demanding that you make your presence “actively” known to another driver, you do not have to honk or swerve or do anything else out-of-the-ordinary.

Contact Our Team for Experienced Phoenix Motorcycle Accident Attorneys for a Free Consultation

Our attorneys have decades of experience representing the interests of injured plaintiffs.  We pride ourselves on our commitment to client-oriented service that is aggressive, relentless, and dedicated to securing substantial positive results.  Over the years, this commitment has paid off — since our founding, we have recovered over $100 million in favorable verdicts and settlements on behalf of our clients.

Interested in learning more about how we can help you obtain compensation for your motorcycle-related injuries?  Call 602-535-1900 or submit a case evaluation form through our website to schedule a free and confidential consultation with one of our experienced Phoenix motorcycle accident attorneys.  We will evaluate your case and work with you to develop a strategic plan moving forward.

Phoenix Accident Lawyer

If you’ve been injured in a motor vehicle accident due to the fault of another, then you may be entitled to recover damages pursuant to Arizona law.  It’s worth noting, however, that the lawsuit may change depending on whether the defendant was operating a “commercial vehicle.”

If the defendant-driver was operating the vehicle for a commercial purpose — in other words, if they were an employee acting within the course and scope of their employment — then you might have legitimate, actionable claims against their employer on the basis of vicarious liability and negligent hiring theories of liability.  Claims against an employer are valuable for a number of reasons, chief amongst them the fact that employers tend to have deeper pockets and more to lose by going through litigation (i.e., their commercial reputation), and as such, you’re likelier to secure full and adequate damage recovery in litigation against the employer.

Let’s explore negligent hiring claims.

Independent Employer Negligence and Negligent Hiring

Negligent hiring claims are “independent” claims brought against the employer for their own contribution of negligence in a commercial vehicle accident — they are quite unlike vicarious liability claims, which impose liability on the employer for the negligence perpetrated by the employee.

In Arizona, you can hold the employer liable for both negligent hiring and for claims falling under the vicarious liability umbrella.

Thus, in order to succeed in establishing liability in a negligent hiring lawsuit, you’ll have to show that the defendant-employer actually acted in violation of the standard of care and thereby contributed to your injuries.

Negligent hiring can be difficult to understand, so let’s use an example to get the basic concepts across.

Suppose that you are injured in an accident involving a commercial driver who was driving while distracted by their cell phone (texting) — perhaps a delivery driver for a local business supply warehouse.  You consult an attorney for assistance.  As the investigation deepens, you discover that the employer hired the driver despite knowing that they had a long and consistent accident history, most of which involved distracted driving.  It seems clear that the employer negligently hired the driver, given that they knew about the heightened risk of harm.

Negligent Hiring Issue Must Be Linked to the Accident

Importantly, negligent hiring will not lead to liability unless the “negligence” actually contributed to your injuries.  For example, if a commercial driver struggles with alcoholism (and the employer hired them despite knowing of the alcoholism), then you cannot succeed in establishing liability for negligent hiring unless you show that the driver was intoxicated at the time of the accident.  If the driver was not intoxicated, then the “negligent hiring” issue is irrelevant to the injuries caused.

Contact an Experienced Phoenix Accident Lawyer for a Free and Confidential Consultation

Here at Hirsch & Lyon, our attorneys have extensive experience handling claims on behalf of those who have been injured in car, truck, and motorcycle accidents, including those that involve a commercial vehicle.

Commercial vehicle accidents may implicate the employer of the driver, thus giving rise to additional complications (and opportunities).  Since our founding, we have secured over $100 million on behalf of our clients, through favorable verdicts and settlements.

Interested?  Call 602-535-1900 or send us a message online to request a free, confidential, and no-obligation consultation with an experienced Phoenix accident lawyer at Hirsch & Lyon today.

Hit and run accidents are more common throughout the United States than you might think.  A recent AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety report indicated that an average of 682,000 hit and run crashes occur annually (based on data recorded since 2006).  If you’ve been injured in a hit and run accident, then you may have a right of action for damages, even if the other driver cannot be found.  If the driver can be found and depending on the circumstances, your case may be strengthened by the fact that the defendant fled the scene.

Reasons Why a Defendant May Flee the Scene

There are a number of reasons as to why a defendant may flee the scene of an accident, some of which are more “egregious” than others.  Consider the following:

• Lack of insurance coverage
• Underinsured
• Concern over potential liability
• Driving while intoxicated (and want to avoid being arrested and charged)
• Fear of reprisal
• Shock
• Unaware of collision

If a defendant flees the scene, you are not entirely without options for litigating your injury claims.  You may be able to identify the defendant by gathering and evaluating surveillance footage, speaking to eyewitnesses or by monitoring the accident scene after the collision, as most drivers tend to stick to a pattern of travel if the collision occurred on a daily commute.

Civil Liability for a Hit and Run Accident

Hit and run accidents may not only expose the defendant to criminal liability, but may also expose them to potential civil liability, which gives you an opportunity to recover significant damages for the injuries you sustain as a result of their behavior.

Evidence is Probative of Negligence

The fact that the defendant-driver fled the scene of the accident is not — in and of itself — enough to establish negligence.  Generally speaking, evidence of a hit and run accident can be admissible as evidence of wrongdoing. The circumstances (aside from the fact that the defendant fled the scene) must be sufficient to infer negligence.

Punitive Damages Liability

Fleeing the scene of a motor vehicle accident may give rise to punitive damages liability in certain circumstances.  Punitive damages are awarded quite infrequently — the court imposes punitive damages only when the defendant has engaged in willfully malicious acts, egregious acts, reckless acts, and/or acts that showcase a disregard of the safety of others.

Fleeing the scene of an accident may be interpreted as a reckless disregard for the injured person’s safety, or it may even be viewed as a malicious act.  Of course, in some cases, a plaintiff may flee the scene out of fear or mere instinct.  Depending on the facts surrounding the hit and run accident at issue, it may qualify for punitive damages under the law.

Punitive damages are a punishment — they are meant to discourage same or similar behavior in society.  When punitive damages are calculated, they may therefore extend well past the actual losses.  For example, if you are injured in a hit and run accident where your damages total $50,000, then the court may award punitive damages of up to $300,000, for a total recovery of $350,000.

Uninsured Motorist Coverage

If the driver of the vehicle who caused the collision cannot be located, you may still be able to present a claim for the losses and harms that you sustained in a hit and run accident.  Uninsured Motorist Coverage, provided by your own automobile insurance policy, allows a means of recovery for this type of collision, as long as certain conditions are met.

This is a Guest Article Written By Jonathan Russell of Drake, Hileman and Davis

About the Author:

Attorney Jonathan J. Russell has been a member of Drake, Hileman and Davis, PC since 1993 and a shareholder and principal in the firm since 1998. Jonathan received his law degree from Villanova University School of Law and his Bachelor’s degree from Eastern Nazarene College. As a trial attorney, Jonathan has been an advocate for his clients throughout all phases of the litigation process. He has obtained successful verdicts and awards before judges, juries and arbitration panels. Jonathan has been recognized by the publishers of Philadelphia Magazine, as a SuperLawyer for the past eight years and is a member of the Million dollar Advocates Forum.

Car Accident Lawyers in Phoenix Explain “Emergency Defense”

In Arizona, as in other states, the behavior of the defendant-driver in a car accident is not always unjustifiable.  Depending on the circumstances, the defendant-driver may have acted in a reasonable manner, even though their actions ultimately led to an accident (and subsequent injuries).  These situations tend to be rather uncommon, but they do happen — the sudden emergency doctrine covers one such scenario.

By developing a more complete understanding of the defenses commonly used to avoid liability in a car accident lawsuit — such as the sudden emergency defense — you can be better prepared to undermine the defendant’s argument.

Let’s take a closer look.

What is the Sudden Emergency Defense, and How Does it Work?

The sudden emergency doctrine — on which the defense is anchored — establishes that a defendant cannot be held liable for when they act reasonably (given the circumstances) in reaction to an emergency.  This can be a difficult concept to explain using general terms, so let’s explore a quick example to clarify.

Suppose that you are injured in a car accident where the defendant-driver shifted into your lane suddenly and slammed into the side of your car, causing you to collide with the median and suffer serious harm.  As it turns out, however, the defendant-driver only acted in that manner in order to avoid a massive ditch that would have sent their car falling at least ten feet or so.  The defendant was acted out of necessity due to a “sudden emergency.”  Under such circumstances, they would likely not be liable for the injuries you suffered.

Reasonable Conduct Under the Circumstances

It’s important to understand that you can overcome the defendant’s assertion that they are shielded from liability due to the sudden emergency defense.  You’ll have to show that the defendant did not act reasonably under the circumstances, however.

Though an emergency situation does give defendant’s a wider “berth” of reasonable conduct, some actions may still be unreasonable.  For example, if the defendant sees that the road is coming to a sudden end, and they have to merge, then it may be unreasonable for them to immediately merge into a crowded lane (at high speed) as opposed to slowing down or coming to a stop, first.  If the defendant acts unreasonably in an emergency situation — in other words, if a reasonable person would have acted differently — then they can be held liable for the damages caused.

Contact an Experienced Phoenix Car Accident Lawyer for a Free and Confidential Consultation

Here at Hirsch & Lyon, our team of attorneys has decades of experience litigating motor vehicle accident claims (including car accident claims) on behalf of those who have been injured due to the fault of another.

This specialized approach to litigation has given us deep insight into our practice areas and how to effectively advocate in challenging situations.  We are able to anticipate the tactics that will be employed by the defendant and undermine or otherwise circumvent the hazards altogether.  Since our founding, we have achieved substantial success in motor vehicle accident litigation, and have recovered over $100 million for our clients.

Call 602-535-1900 or submit an online case evaluation form to schedule a free and confidential consultation with an experienced Phoenix car accident attorney at Hirsch & Lyon today.

Phoenix Wrongful Death Attorney

Wrongful death litigation can be emotionally overwhelming.  Family members must not only process the untimely and unexpected death of their loved one but must also pursue comprehensive litigation in order to secure damages that can compensate them for the losses they suffered as a result.

Many first-time plaintiffs are not entirely familiar with wrongful death litigation and what it entails.  Wrongful death actions can be rather difficult to conceptualize compared to a standard personal injury action.

Stated simply, wrongful death actions are brought by certain qualified family members for the damages they suffered due to the loss of their loved one.  For example, suppose that a father dies in a car accident that was caused by the fault of another.  The child of the deceased might have a legitimate wrongful death claim for the losses they sustained — including but not limited to their mental anguish, the financial support they will no longer receive from their father, and the love, companionship, and guidance of their father.

If you’re interested in bringing a wrongful death action (against the party responsible for the death of your loved one), it’s important to understand some of the limitations typical of such disputes.

Let’s take a brief look at one such limitation.

Accident-Related Deaths Do Not Always Create an Actionable Wrongful Death Claim

In Arizona, actionable wrongful death claims require an underlying wrongful act — either negligence, recklessness, or intentional misconduct.  If there is no underlying wrongful act linked to the death at-issue, then liability will not attach.

How does this work?

Suppose that your father dies in a car accident, but nobody else was at-fault for their death.  Perhaps the weather conditions were extremely poor and your father lost control of the vehicle as a result, leading to his death.  Under such circumstances, there could be no actionable wrongful death claim.

Now, suppose that investigators discovered that your father’s accident was partly caused by a mechanical defect in the car brake system.  If the brakes manufacturer would have been liable for your father’s injuries (had he survived), then you may be entitled to bring a wrongful death action against the manufacturer for damages.

Schedule a Free and Confidential Consultation With an Experienced Phoenix Wrongful Death Attorney

Hirsch & Lyon is a Phoenix-based boutique litigation firm with a focus on personal injury cases on behalf of those who have suffered serious losses.  We have extensive experience representing victims and their families in challenging litigation, including the family members of the deceased.

We are a client-oriented firm, and as such, we are committed to working closely with clients at every stage of litigation.  We maintain open lines of communication so that clients can have their questions and concerns answered — by encouraging the sharing of information, we are uniquely well-informed and capable of taking decisive action on behalf of our clients.  Over the years, this approach has helped us recover over $100 million for our clients.

If you’re ready to learn more about your claims, call 602-535-1900 or request an appointment online to schedule a free and confidential consultation with an experienced Phoenix wrongful death attorney at Hirsch & Lyon today.