–Injury Lawyers – Page 8

Our Phoenix Accident Lawyers Will Fight for Maximum Damages in Your Aggressive Driving Accident 

In Arizona, and elsewhere, motor vehicle accidents typically occur due to the negligent or reckless conduct of a defendant.  Of course, there are many cases in which the defendant has intentionally caused injuries to the defendant — such conduct falls within the umbrella of intentional torts, and may expose the defendant to civil liability for damages you suffered as a result, as well as criminal liability.

Many injury plaintiffs are not familiar with the prospect of twin criminal and civil liability, and don’t quite realize how one affects the other.  Put simply, the fact that the defendant is currently engaged in — or will be engaged in — a criminal prosecution will have no bearing on your ability to recover damages in civil litigation.  Even if the defendant is found innocent in criminal litigation, it’s worth noting that criminal liability requires the satisfaction of a much stricter burden of proof (i.e., 99 percent certainty, as opposed to the 51 percent certainty required in civil litigation).

Road rage or other form of aggressive driving is an unfortunate reality.  In the spur of the moment, many drivers lose their senses and engage in behaviors that are designed to frustrate another driver who they perceive to be doing something wrong.  Such conduct is unarguably intentional, and can expose others to a significantly heightened risk of harm.

Intentional collisions give rise to unique considerations in the Arizona motor vehicle accident context, which an experienced Phoenix accident lawyer can use advantageously in litigation.  Consider the following.

Intentional Misconduct and the Sliding Scale of Liability

In a motor vehicle accident, the defendant-driver’s conduct falls on a sliding scale, with one side being negligence, and the other side being intentional misconduct.  In the middle lies reckless conduct (otherwise known as gross negligence).  Negligent actions are so careless that they violate the standard of reasonable care for a given situation.  Proving that the defendant engaged in negligence requires that the plaintiff establish the proper standard of care and demonstrate that the defendant violated that standard.  By contrast, proving that the defendant engaged in intentional misconduct requires that the plaintiff demonstrate that the defendant actually intended to cause them harm — the state of mind must be made clear.  It’s worth noting that the plaintiff can always plead negligence or recklessness in the alternative.

For example, suppose that you are injured in a motor vehicle accident where the defendant swerved into your lane and collided with your vehicle.  You assert that the defendant intentionally caused such harm due to “road rage.”  Your attorney will likely also plead that — in the alternative — the defendant engaged in negligent conduct that violated the standard of care in the circumstances (i.e., a reasonable person would have merged only after using their blinkers, and only if there was sufficient space to merge).  As such, you can still recover damages even if establishing the specific intent of the defendant proves too difficult.

Potential for Punitive Damages

In Arizona, punitive damages are sometimes awarded in personal injury lawsuits when the defendant has acted in such a way that their conduct was indicative of an “evil hand and an evil mind.”  An evil mind is demonstrated by evidence of the defendant’s intention to cause harm to the plaintiff, or when the defendant’s conduct was motivated by maliciousness or ill will.  If the defendant collides with you intentionally, for example, there is a strong likelihood that you will be awarded punitive damages in addition to compensatory damages.

Contact an Experienced Phoenix Motor Vehicle Accident Lawyer Today

If you have suffered injuries due to the intentional misconduct of a driver in Arizona, then you may be entitled to compensation for your losses.  Here at Hirsch & Lyon, our attorneys have decades of experience litigating a range of claims on behalf of injured clients, including those that involve a defendant’s intentional misconduct (such as a car accident caused by the defendant’s “road rage”).

We are committed to personalized representation.  Throughout the litigation process, we strive to keep our strategic objectives aligned with those of our clients.  We believe that transparency in the attorney-client relationship is critical to success in litigation.

Call (602) 535-1900 today to speak with an experienced Phoenix accident lawyer here at Hirsch & Lyon.  Your initial consultation is free, and thereafter, we work on contingency — you only pay if we obtain damages on your behalf, and thanks to our discounted contingency fee arrangements, you get to keep more for yourself!

As the injured plaintiff — in Arizona and elsewhere — you should take note of the statute of limitations for your various claims.  The statute of limitations is of prime importance in every litigation (both civil and criminal!).  Essentially, the statute of limitations acts as a deadline for your injury claims.

Do bear in mind that the statute of limitations deadline is a rather strict one.  If you do not file your claims before the deadline passes, then the claims will “expire” and you will no longer be entitled to sue and recover damages against the defendant on the basis of such claims.  As such, it’s absolutely vital that you connect with an attorney who will file your personal injury claims in a timely manner, and thereby avoid relinquishing your right to sue and recover damages in an Arizona court.

In the Arizona personal injury context, the statute of limitations deadline is two years from the date the cause of action accrues.  This is a somewhat short period of time for such overwhelming tasks — during such time, you’ll have to begin the process of physical and psychological rehabilitation, reintegrate yourself into your career and social life, and more, in addition to identifying relevant injury claims and filing them before the deadline passes.  A sense of immediacy is therefore critical to effective personal injury litigation.

When the Cause of Action Accrues

Normally, the cause of action “accrues” on the date of injury.  Like many other states throughout the country, however, Arizona implements the discovery rule, which can change when the cause of action actually accrues.

The discovery rule can give plaintiffs a bit more time when circumstances are such that — even with reasonable diligence — the plaintiff would not have discovered their injuries, or the fact that there was negligent, reckless, or intentional conduct that could make the defendant potentially liable, until some later date.

This rule can be quite confusing.  Let’s go through a brief example.

Imagine that you have been injured in a rear-end motor vehicle accident that occurred while you were stopped at a red light.  The defendant’s fault is immediately clear, but you don’t suffer any obvious injuries at the time of the accident, besides some slight soreness.  A quick doctor’s visit does not reveal any issues, either.  Two years later, you are in great pain and get thorough diagnostic scans done on your spine.  This reveals serious spinal degeneration that was set in motion by the rear-end incident two years prior.

In this scenario, if the cause of action accrued on the actual date of injury (i.e., the date of the accident), then you would no longer be entitled to sue and recover damages, as the deadline would have passed.  If the cause of action accrued later (i.e., the date of discovery), then you would still have two years to file your claims.  Whether the date of discovery is a legitimate one for counting the “accrual” depends on how reasonable it was to discover the injury at that later date.  If a reasonable person would have discovered it sooner, then the date of accrual will be sooner.

Contact an Experienced Phoenix Accident Lawyer Today

If you have been injured due to the actions of another person or entity, then you may be entitled to sue that defendant to obtain compensation for your various injuries, in accordance with Arizona law.  It’s important to note, however, that you do not have an unlimited amount of time to consider a lawsuit, so make sure to get in touch with an experienced Arizona injury attorney here at Hirsch & Lyon as soon as possible.

Hirsch & Lyon is a Phoenix-based law firm that has represented numerous clients in injury litigation through the years.  We provide unique, discounted contingency fee arrangements that ensure clients can keep more of their damages as compensation.

Call (602) 535-1900 today to connect to an experienced Phoenix accident lawyer at our firm.

In Arizona, and elsewhere, auto mechanics can be held liable for injuries that are caused due to their negligent, reckless, or intentional misconduct in handling your vehicle while it’s “in the shop.”  The strong possibility of auto mechanic liability in a motor vehicle accident scenario can come as something of a surprise to those who are not aware of how fault can be distributed to multiple defendants.

Auto mechanics must act with reasonable care while your vehicle (or the defendant-driver’s vehicle) is in their possession.  Failure to adhere to the standard of care, given the circumstances, could result in the attachment of liability.

Standard of Care

The standard of care in any given situation is influenced by a number of factors.  The duty of reasonable care is not universal.  This applies to auto mechanics as well.  The standard of care will be influenced by factors that include, but are not necessarily limited, to:

• Training and experience of the mechanic
• Nature of the defect requiring repair
• Obviousness of the defect
• Cost and expectations relating to the repair
• Whether the owner/driver has been notified as to discovered defects
• And more

For example, an auto mechanic who is conducting an inspection on a vehicle that has a non-obvious, extremely rare defect would not necessarily be negligent for failing to discover said defect.  An auto mechanic who fails to identify faulty brakes, on the other hand, would likely be found negligent for failing to do so.

How Liability Falls on the Mechanic

Auto mechanic liability is rather useful for all parties (except the mechanic, of course) involved in litigation.  If you are the injured victim in a motor vehicle accident, then being able to sue the mechanic for failing to properly inspect or repair the vehicle at-issue can give you access to substantial financial resources and insurance coverage that the driver may not have.  On the other hand, if you are the defendant-driver in a motor vehicle accident, but your car was simply unresponsive or defective at the time of the accident, then you can shift liability to the mechanic who actually is responsible for the defect.

Auto mechanics may be found liable for a broad range of actions that include, but are not necessarily limited, to:

• Failing to notify the owner/driver as to inherent dangers
• Failing to properly inspect the vehicle to discover defects
• Failing to repair discovered defects (or notify the owner/driver)
• Performing work that was not authorized by the owner/driver
• Modifying the vehicle in a way that creates a heightened risk of injury
• And more

Contact an Experienced Phoenix Car Accident Lawyer Today

If you have suffered injuries in a motor vehicle accident in Arizona, you may not only be entitled to litigate injury claims against the defendant-driver, but you may also be entitled to litigate injury claims against the auto mechanic, assuming that the circumstances demonstrate that the mechanic significantly contributed the the accident.  Get in touch with an experienced Arizona motor vehicle accident attorney here at Hirsch & Lyon for further guidance on how to move forward with your lawsuit.

Call (602) 535-1900 today to speak with an experienced Phoenix car accident lawyer.

Motor vehicle accidents are by their very nature difficult-to-predict.  In some cases, a sudden and unexpected emergency can influence the ability of the defendant to predict the consequences of their actions and avoid an accident.

For example, imagine a situation in which the defendant-driver is operating their vehicle on the highway and has a heart attack.  The driver — battling the sudden pain, spasms, and general loss of body control inflicted by the heart attack — swerves into your lane and collides with your vehicle, causing you to suffer significant injuries.

Can you recover damages?

There isn’t a simple yes-or-no answer that applies to all “sudden emergency” scenarios in the motor vehicle context, unfortunately.  Whether you can recover damages in a situation involving a sudden emergency is dependent largely on the circumstances at-issue — and more specifically, whether the driver acted with reasonable care given the emergency.

Have you been involved in an accident and suffered injuries as a result?  You may be able to sue the defendant and obtain compensation, pursuant to Arizona law.  In the personal injury context, the person responsible for your injuries can make use of a number of defenses to escape liability.  To ensure that your claims are effectively litigated, make sure to consult with an experienced Arizona motor vehicle accident lawyer so that your lawsuit can be properly evaluated and filed.

Arizona applies what is known as the “sudden emergency” doctrine to cases in which the defendant is rendered incapable of reacting in a safe and reasonable manner to the circumstances.  Generally speaking, Arizona does not treat the sudden emergency doctrine as its own separate doctrine, and instead applies its reasoning to the interdependent issues of standard of care and negligence that lie at the heart of a motor vehicle accident claim.

To put it in simpler terms: Arizona courts do not view the sudden emergency doctrine as a separate and independent rule.  The presence of a sudden emergency is simply a factor in the consideration of the total circumstances.

Standard of Care and the Sudden Emergency Doctrine

Defendant-drivers may be held liable for violating the standard of care.  The standard of care is a relative concept that changes dynamically based on the circumstances.  For example, the standard of care required of drivers in a school zone or in the parking lot of a hospital is likely to be higher than the standard of care required of drivers operating a vehicle on abandoned property.  There are a number of factors that influence the standard of care: the driver’s age, the condition of the roadway (i.e., visibility), the condition of the vehicle, the training and experience of the driver, and more.

How does the sudden emergency doctrine work, then?

Essentially, if the defendant finds themselves in a sudden emergency situation, then they may argue that the standard of care was lower — given the emergency circumstances — and that their actions therefore did not violate the standard of care.  Emergency circumstances are those that require “rapid action” and that do not allow the defendant to make a deliberate and well-considered decision.

If you are suing the defendant-driver, and they claim to have had a heart attack at the time of the accident, for example, then your attorney will likely investigate the nature of the heart attack and its severity.  If the heart attack was minor, and circumstances were such that the defendant could have safely moved their vehicle to the side and come to a stop, then it will have an effect on their liability.  Further, the presence of a sudden emergency will not shield the defendant from liability when they have negligently created a dangerous situation.  For example, if the defendant-driver had a heart attack, but was driving dangerously above the speed limit on a local road, then their inability to safely maneuver and avoid a collision during the sudden emergency may have been affected by their excessive speed.

As an injured plaintiff in a motor vehicle accident lawsuit, your claims may be countered by various defenses.  Depending on the circumstances, the defendant may argue that they are not liable for damages on the basis that there is no causal link between their conduct and the injuries at-issue, that you were also negligent, and that there are co-defendants who must share liability, among other arguments.

If you have been injured in a motor vehicle accident, you may be entitled to sue and recover damages as compensation for your injuries, pursuant to Arizona law.  Litigation is rarely straightforward, however, though it may appear to be upon first impression.  In many cases, circumstances will enable the defendant to put forth several strong defense arguments that could absolve them of liability, or — at the very least — minimize their potential liabilities.  As such, it’s important that you work with an experienced Arizona motor vehicle accident attorney who has a track record of success in handling claims where the defendant was well-positioned to counter the plaintiff’s assertions.

Certain defenses are commonly used by defendants in motor vehicle accident cases to minimize their liability.  An experienced injury attorney will almost certainly have encountered these defenses before, and are well-equipped to navigate the barriers they raise to the success of your claims.

Consider the following.

Plaintiff Was Comparatively Negligent

Arizona applies the doctrine of pure comparative negligence — or pure comparative fault.  What this essentially means is that the plaintiff may still recover damages even if they are significantly at-fault for their own injuries (up to 99 percent at-fault, in fact).  As such, though a negligent defendant cannot necessarily absolve themselves of liability by asserting that the plaintiff also contributed to the injuries, the defendant can minimize their potential damages.  For example, if the court finds that you are 50 percent liable for your injuries, then your damage award will be cut in half.

Plaintiff Had a Preexisting Injury or Condition

As a plaintiff, you must have suffered losses as the result of the defendant’s negligent, reckless, or intentional conduct in order to recover damages.  If you did not actually suffer new and distinct losses, then you are not entitled to recover damages.  It is therefore quite common for defendants to assert that the injured plaintiffs are not entitled to compensation on the basis that they suffered from preexisting injuries or a preexisting condition, and that the accident at-issue did not actually result in any new, distinct injuries.  If your symptoms are the same before and after the accident, the defendant may succeed in absolving themselves of liability on this basis.

It’s worth noting, however, that you may still recover damages for the same injury or condition that you suffered from prior to the accident, so long as you can show that the accident aggravated your preexisting injury or condition.  For example, if you had a preexisting back injury and the accident caused your pain symptoms to increase and limited your mobility to a greater degree, then you could recover damages for the losses related to such aggravation.

Defendant’s Negligence Did Not Cause Injuries

The mere fact that a defendant was involved in an accident with you — and that the defendant was operating their vehicle negligently at the time of the accident — is not necessarily proof that the defendant’s negligent actions caused your injuries.  If the defendant’s negligent actions did not actually cause your injuries, then you cannot hold them liable.

For example, imagine that the defendant was speeding at the time of the accident, when they made a legal lane change and collided with your vehicle.  Though the defendant was speeding at the time (and was therefore acting negligently), speeding may not have actually caused or even worsened the accident.

Other Liable Defendants

If there are other potentially liable defendants, the defendant may argue that they should be brought in for the purposes of litigation.  The defendant may reasonably argue that they should not be held liable in full for damages that others negligently contributed to.  Arizona holds defendants severally liable, not jointly liable — as such, a defendant may only be held liable for the proportion of their total fault contribution in the case at-issue.

Plaintiff Failed to Mitigate Damages

Plaintiffs must act reasonably following their injuries to mitigate their damages to the degree possible.  For example, suppose that you are making a wage loss claim as part of your overall damages in a motor vehicle accident lawsuit.  You did not work for a full two years after the accident.  The record shows that you were offered several jobs, however, and that you would have been in reasonably good health enough to work in those positions had you accepted the positions instead of remaining unemployed.  The defendant could argue that you failed to adequately mitigate your damages and that they cannot be held liable for losses that were within your control.

In Arizona, as in other states, evidence of your injuries — whether in a motor vehicle accident or some other accident — is critical to support your legal claims against the defendant(s).  Without sufficient evidence to support your claims, your claim will be dismissed and you will be left with no means for obtaining compensation.

Attorneys are valuable early-on, as they will guide your independent investigation of the facts of the case, and can connect you with experts who will not only assess the scene of the accident, but will also help assess the gathered evidence.

As a plaintiff, there are a number of ways in which you can help ensure that your case goes smoothly (from an evidence-gathering perspective).  Consider the following.

Obtain Contact Info of Important Parties

Once you’ve been involved in an accident, you’ll want to first identify any and all potential defendants (i.e., the defendant-driver in a motor vehicle accident scenario).  If you fail to identify the defendant and obtain their contact information, it can be rather challenging to litigate a claim against them, as the defendant may thereafter make attempts to evade litigation by maintaining their anonymity.  This happens quite often in the hit-and-run context, where negligent drivers get away before the injured victim (or anyone else) is capable of properly identifying them.

Identification information need not only be phone numbers, emails, and addresses.  It can be a description of the defendant, a photograph of the defendant, the license plate number of the defendant, a description of their property (i.e., color and model of their vehicle), and more.  Anything that can be used to identify the defendant will be useful in pursuing litigation, particularly if the defendant is “slippery” and evasive.

This is also true of witnesses at the scene.  Make sure to obtain their contact information so that you can request their presence later, once litigation has begun.  A legitimate eyewitness account can spell the difference between a winning case and a losing case.

Write Notes and Take Photographs of the Accident

Taking notes of the accident — from identifying information to an account of what actually happened (i.e., the sequence of events leading up to the accident) — is incredibly useful as a tool for more accurately remembering the accident and the circumstances surrounding it.

Photographs are perhaps even more useful, as photographic evidence of the scene of the accident may be introduced as evidence and can be used by accident experts to help reconstruct the sequence of events and demonstrate — objectively — how the defendant’s actions led to your injuries.  Don’t forget: photographs can be taken of your injuries to demonstrate what they looked like after the accident, and photographs can also be taken of property before the landowner makes safety modifications. 

Preserve Damaged Property and other Physical Evidence

Damaged property can be valuable evidence.  A damaged vehicle, for example, can be examined so that investigators can piece together the impact forces involved in a car accident and what angles these impacts occurred at.  Further, if you were injured as the result of a defect in your vehicle, then preserving the evidence (as opposed to junking the vehicle, selling it, or repairing it) may be critical for demonstrating the existence of the defect.

Secure Medical Records

Medical records include a range of evidence, such as diagnostic reports, inpatient/outpatient reports, surgical reports, medical billing records, and more.  Once you begin working with an attorney, he or she will begin gather all relevant medical record evidence for the purposes of litigation.  As a general rule, however, it’s worth requesting copies of all your medical records from beginning-to-end of treatment.  This makes it easier and faster to begin the process of litigation in earnest.

Obtain Evidence of Wage Loss

Wage loss (and loss of earning capacity) evidence includes payment records, work disciplinary records, and more.  Any written evidence of days that you were forced to take off due to your injury, or partial days, or of any negative work-related incident associated with the injury (i.e., perhaps you were passed over for a promotion as you were deemed physically incapable — due to the lack of energy following the accident — of performing the role).

Evidence gathering and preservation is critical to the success of an injury lawsuit.  Without adequate evidence to support your claims, they will not survive litigation.  As such, it’s critical that you work with an attorney early on — with the aid of an attorney, you will have the resources necessary to investigate and secure sufficient evidence so that your injury claims are well-supported.

If you have been injured due to another’s negligent, reckless, or intentional actions, call (602) 535-1900 today to connect to an experienced Phoenix injury lawyer here at Hirsch & Lyon.  Initial consultation is free.  Your attorney will work with you to assess your injury claims and help you navigate the challenging process of litigation.

In Arizona, as in other states, injured plaintiffs — whether in motor vehicle accidents, or any other tortious accident caused by the negligence, recklessness, or intentional conduct of a defendant — are entitled to recover damages that include both past and future medical expenses.

Let’s begin with a simple example.

Suppose that you are injured in a motor vehicle accident due to the negligent operation of a vehicle by another driver.  You suffer significant injuries to your back, neck, and limbs that require you to not only undergo diagnostic procedures and surgical treatment, but will also (for up to a year or more) require that you consistently attend rehabilitation sessions to get your strength back.  In addition to the various other losses that you may claim damages for (i.e., wage loss, pain and suffering, emotional distress, etc.), you may also claim damages for the medical expenses that you have already suffered, and for reasonably anticipated medical expenses in the future.

Medical expenses tend to be a substantial component (and in many cases, the largest component) of a plaintiff’s overall damage claim, as the cost of medical care includes a range of services, from diagnostics to treatment, and everything in-between.  As such, medical expenses are a frequent target of criticism in the litigation context.  Depending on the medical care that you have received, the defendant may assert that the medical care you have received (or that you will receive) is not reasonably necessary.

Past Medical Expenses

Past medical expenses are those costs associated with medical care (diagnostics, treatment, rehabilitative care, etc.) services that you have already been provided.  It’s important that you secure all your medical records — from inpatient reports to medical billing records — so that you can use such evidence to directly support your damages claim, without having to resort to assumption and guesswork.

Reasonable Charges

In some circumstances, particularly if you’ve received what the defendant believes to be “excessive” medical care, or perhaps “nontraditional” or “risky” medical care, the defendant will assert that they are not liable for the costs you incurred as a result of medical care that was not reasonable or necessary, given the circumstances.

For example, if you have suffered a minor leg injury, and in response, you go in for an experimental, risky surgery that is extremely costly (for no significant added benefit in comparison to traditional, cheaper surgeries), then the defendant will almost certainly argue that the costs were not reasonable.

Reasonability is an issue that depends on the circumstances.  Whereas a risky surgery may be unreasonable for a minor limb injury, it may be reasonable in circumstances where the plaintiff has suffered life-altering injuries and there are no other traditional, safer, and cheaper alternatives.

Future Medical Expenses

Future medical expenses are somewhat more difficult to prove than past medical expenses, as there are no medical records of the actual treatment (that has yet to be provided).  You will have to introduce expert medical testimony to establish that the future treatment is not only necessary given your injuries/condition, but also that the projected costs are reasonably accurate.

Given the inherently uncertain nature of future medical expenses, many defendants will challenge such claims.  As a plaintiff, you must therefore demonstrate that:

1. There is a reasonable probability that the treatment will be necessary, and
2. The projected cost of treatment (and related care) is a reasonable estimation of the value.

Demonstrating that a treatment is reasonably probable — and necessary — will depend on the circumstances.  If doctors have not yet decided whether to operate on you, for example, then you may not be entitled to claim damages for that future medical expense (unless it is reasonably probable that they will decide to operate on you).

Have you been injured in an accident due to another’s fault?  You may be entitled to compensation — which includes a damages award for medical expenses (past and future) — in accordance with Arizona law.  Your claims are subject to a statute of limitations deadline, however, so it’s important that you consult with a qualified Arizona attorney as soon as you can to ensure that your claims are litigated in a timely manner.

Call (602) 535-1900 today to speak with an experienced Phoenix injury lawyer here at Hirsch & Lyon.  Initial consultation is free.  Your attorney will assess your injury claims and help you navigate the process of litigation moving forward.

In a motor vehicle accident — or any other personal injury scenario, for that matter — it can be rather difficult for the injured victim to determine whether the defendant simply made an understandable mistake, or whether the defendant acted negligently, thus exposing them to potential damages liability.  In fact, this uncertainty often discourages injury victims from bringing a lawsuit against the defendant and thereby securing damages to compensate them for their various injuries.

If you have been injured due to the conduct of another person (or entity), and you believe that the defendant’s conduct violated the standard of care — given the circumstances — then you may be entitled to compensation for your injuries.  Injury claims often seem simple upon first impression.  In reality, however, your injury lawsuit can be complicated by a number of issues, such as the presence of multiple hostile defendants, evidentiary challenges, and more.  Make sure to consult with an experienced Arizona personal injury attorney for assistance.

If simple mistakes do not give rise to liability (except in product defect litigation, and other limited circumstances), and negligence does, wherein lies the difference between these two concepts?  At what point does a mistake “become” negligence and grant the injured party a right to sue and recover damages?

The answer to these difficult questions is embedded in the concept of “standard of care,” so let’s consider some of the fundamentals of the standard of care and how negligent conduct is borne from the violation of applicable standards.

Violation of the Standard of Care

In Arizona, as in other states, individuals and entities owe others a duty to exercise reasonable care given the circumstances.  This is a basic principle of tort law.  Failure to act in accordance with one’s duty of care will constitute a violation of the standard of care (applicable to the situation) and give rise to negligence liability.  To sum it up: a mistake gives rise to negligence when the mistake violates the standard of care.

As this legal terminology can be somewhat confusing, it’s best clarified with an example.

Imagine that you have been injured in a motor vehicle accident.  You were a pedestrian crossing the street at a legal, marked crosswalk, when the defendant collided with you, thus causing you to suffer significant injuries.  Now, suppose that the defendant-driver argues that they did not see you while rounding the curve that opened up into the crosswalk, as there were uncut plants that were obscuring their vision as they made the turn.  Given the circumstances, one could argue that the driver did not actually violate their standard of care (if they were otherwise driving in a safe manner).  On the other hand, you might be entitled to sue the property owner whose plants obscured the roadway.

The standard of care is fundamentally circumstantial.  In other words, it can change depending on the nature of the situation.  For example, the standard of care that applies to a professional truck driver who is driving for work-purposes may be higher than the standard of care that applies to a normal driver.

A number of different factors can influence the standard of care: the defendant’s age, experiences, training, and physical/mental capacity, the obviousness of the danger, the suddenness of the danger, the activity in which the defendant and plaintiff were involved, any regulations relating to the activity, and more.

In some cases, violation of a rule may give rise to “negligence per se.”  Essentially, the defendant’s violation of a rule may automatically give rise to an assumption of negligence.  As the plaintiff, you need only show that their negligence then caused your injuries.  For example, if the defendant-driver was violating some traffic rule when they collided with you, then you will not have to show that they were acting negligently, but only that their negligent act (i.e., violating the traffic rule) contributed to your injuries.

Personal Injury Damages Explained

In Arizona, and elsewhere in the United States, most cases never make it through to trial litigation.  Instead, a settlement is negotiated between the parties.  In fact, legal industry observers estimate that more than 95 percent of cases are resolved before trial litigation can begin.  For those unfamiliar with the process of litigating an injury claim, the fact that trial litigation is relatively uncommon (and seen as a “last resort” option) can come as something of a surprise.

Have you been injured in an accident that was caused by the negligent, reckless, or intentional conduct of another person?  Trial litigation may enable you to recover damages as compensation for your injuries, but it can be time consuming, expensive, and full of uncertainty.  Negotiating a settlement can save you a great deal of trouble in the long run, and secure you a favorable result — in some cases, a settlement can even ensure a level of amicability that might not otherwise be possible.  Get connected to an Arizona personal injury attorney who has extensive experience settling claims.

Many plaintiffs may be unaware of the value in negotiating a settlement.  Let’s take a quick peek at how settlements can work to your benefit, and then we’ll explore how a favorable settlement is negotiated.

Benefits of Settlement

Settlements are often said to be a win-win for both parties.  In our adversarial legal system, this can be a confounding result.  It’s actually quite simple to understand, however.  When the plaintiff and defendant negotiate a settlement, they are gaining a number of advantages (in comparison to traditional trial litigation).  Primarily, each party is able to exercise a level of control over the uncertainty that is inherent to litigation.

Uncertainty is fundamental to most litigation.  Even where the plaintiff is able to establish a level of certainty, there may be elements of uncertainty attached to litigation.  In situations where the defendant’s fault is undeniable, for example, there may still be substantial disagreement over the nature and extent of the plaintiff’s damages.

Negotiating a settlement empowers each side to take control and define the terms of litigation as they see it, instead of waiting for the court to determine who has won — and how much they have won.

For example, suppose that you are injured in a motor vehicle accident, and your damages tally up to about $500,000 in total.  That’s a significant damages amount, and the defendant is very likely to argue against it in some manner — perhaps by asserting that some of your damages are borne out of pre-existing injuries.  At trial, there is a chance that the court will find against you (leaving you with no recovery), or in the alternative, that the court will find in your favor, but will award you damages significantly below your expected total — say $200,000.  In either scenario, this uncertainty can damage your ability to recover adequate damages for your injuries.

Negotiating a settlement for $400,000 would therefore be a favorable result.  Though it is somewhat below your ideal recovery, it is higher than some of the possible scenarios should the court rule against you, or undervalue your claim.

There are a number of other advantages to settlement as well.  Trial litigation can be time-consuming, emotionally frustrating, exhausting, and expensive.  If your attorney is able to work with opposing counsel and help them understand your legitimate injury claims, you may be able to avoid trial litigation altogether and secure a favorable result through settlement.

Of course, though settlement is preferable in most cases, trial litigation may sometimes be necessary.  There are times when neither party can come to an agreement.  In rare cases, the defendant is simply hostile and uninterested in an amicable resolution.  As such, it’s important that your attorney be well-prepared for trial litigation, even if negotiating a settlement is your target.

In Arizona, a motor vehicle accident negligence claim — same as any other negligence claim brought pursuant to personal injury law — must satisfy certain elements.

More specifically, if you have suffered an injury due to the fault of another, in order to successfully recover damages in an Arizona court, you must prove that: a) you were injured; b) the defendant was negligent; and c) the defendant’s negligence caused your injuries.  Only once all these elements have been satisfied will you receive compensation for your injuries in a court of law.

Have you been injured due to the negligence, recklessness, or intentional misconduct of another person or entity?  Arizona law may give you the right to litigate your claims and receive compensation.  Injury claims do not last forever, so make sure to get connected to an experienced Arizona personal injury attorney as soon as possible, before your claims expire.

Causation is therefore a critical aspect of personal injury litigation.  To put it in very simple terms: you cannot hold a defendant liable for your injuries unless the defendant’s negligent acts actually “caused” your injuries.

Not all cases are simple, however, and oftentimes, the defendant will use muddy, complicated circumstances to argue that they are not responsible for your injuries.  They will claim that there was some intervening cause that actually led to your injuries.  When the “chain of causation” is broken by an intervening cause, then the defendant may avoid liability.

Let’s take a look at how the chain of causation works, and when it breaks due to an intervening cause.

The Chain of Causation

Chain of causation terminology may seem unfamiliar and overly complicated to many, but it’s actually rather straightforward.  The “chain of legal causation” is essentially an unbroken linkage of cause and effect.  When you turn a glass of water onto its side, the liquid that fills the glass will pour out onto the ground (unless there is some occurrence that interferes with the expected action).  This cause-and-effect link is tightly bound to the nature of the objects involved.

In a great deal of personal injury litigation, however, the cause-and-effect link is not always clear.  If the defendant is speeding on the highway, is it reasonable to associate an unlikely consequence — perhaps a frightened driver swerving around and losing control over their own vehicle — with the negligent actions (speeding) of the defendant?

If the causal link (i.e., the chain of causation) has been severed between the defendant’s actions and the consequences thereof, then the defendant cannot be held liable.  Whether the causal link has been severed depends on foreseeability, however.

Foreseeability and Liability

The chain of causation is broken when an intervening cause (otherwise known as a “superseding cause”) severs the link between cause-and-effect.  This can only occur when the intervening cause is unforeseeable, however.  If the intervening cause is reasonably foreseeable given the circumstances, then the defendant can be held liable.

As this can all be rather confusing, consider the following example for clarification.

Imagine that you are injured in a motor vehicle accident at a traffic light.  The defendant is speeding and driving while distracted.  They rear-end you, forcing your car into moving traffic at the intersection, and your car is sideswiped by a different vehicle.  As a result, you are seriously injured.

Now, the defendant cannot argue that the result was unforeseeable, despite the fact that the more serious sideswipe collision could be seen as an intervening cause.  Why?  The sideswipe collision would likely be deemed reasonably foreseeable.  Though the defendant-driver who rear-ended you may not have known exactly what would happen when they collided with the back of your car, they should have reasonably known that they were exposing you to a heightened risk of danger by forcing your car into an active intersection.

Alternatively, if you are pushed into the intersection and an “Act of God” occurs — something so unexpected that it is simply unforeseeable, such as a large tree branch breaking off and slamming into your car in the intersection — then you cannot necessarily hold the defendant-driver liable for the injuries caused by the tree branch, as they could not reasonably foresee that rear-ending you would put you in a position where you were vulnerable to a tree branch falling on your vehicle.  Of course, it’s worth noting that you would still be able to sue and recover damages from the defendant-driver for losses directly attributable by the rear-end collision.

Contact Hirsch & Lyon today for help with your case.