–Injury Lawyers

Uninsured and underinsured motorists pose a serious risk to others on the road — drivers, passengers, pedestrians, cyclists, etc. — as their injured victims may, in many cases, be left without adequate financial recourse for obtaining a full recovery.  Perhaps more concerning are the statistics.  It is not at all uncommon to encounter an uninsured or underinsured motorist on the roads.  According to a 2015 study conducted by the Insurance Information Institute, 12 percent of Arizona drivers are uninsured, and many more are likely to have minimal insurance coverage (the state of Arizona only requires minimum liability insurance coverage of $15,000 per person) that is inadequate for accidents resulting in serious injuries.

If you have been injured by an uninsured or underinsured motorist, you may be concerned that the defendant-driver does not have the resources necessary to adequately cover your damages.  Depending on the particular circumstances of your case, however, you may have alternative avenues for recovery that are worth considering.  Consult with an experienced Arizona motor vehicle accident attorney as soon as possible for further guidance on how to pursue a claim against an uninsured or underinsured motorist.

When the defendant-driver lacks sufficient insurance coverage, then you — the plaintiff — are put in an unenviable position.  For example, if you have $250,000 in damages, but the defendant has only $30,000 in liability insurance, then you will have to look elsewhere to ensure that your damages are covered.

Consider the following strategies for securing a fuller, more adequate recovery.

Secure the Personal Assets of the Defendant

In the event that the defendant lacks sufficient insurance coverage (or lacks coverage altogether), you may be able to secure a lien against the personal assets belonging to the defendant-driver, or even against the earnings of the defendant.  Bear in mind, however, that in many cases, uninsured and underinsured motorists do not have significant personal assets on which to recover.  For example, a driver with substantial personal assets ($1 million or more) is unlikely to lack insurance or otherwise be underinsured with respect to liability coverage.

Engage Your UM/UIM Policy

Arizona does not have mandatory uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage (UM/UIM) for drivers, though it is highly encouraged.  If you have UM/UIM coverage, then you may be able to file a first-party insurance claim with your insurer for the damages you suffered as a consequence of the defendant’s negligent, reckless, or intentional conduct.

It’s important to note that — even if you have a sizable UM/UIM policy — your insurer is not your ally, and will almost certainly attempt to minimize their payout to the degree that it is possible to do so.  As such, it’s critical that you consult with a qualified attorney who can engage in discussions with your insurer and maximize your recovery.

Investigate Potential Co-Defendant Liability

One excellent strategy for recovering damages in cases where the defendant is uninsured or underinsured is to spread liability to other persons or entities.  Further investigation of the facts may reveal additional defendants.

For example, suppose that you are involved in an accident where the defendant-driver (who is an uninsured motorist) was speeding and lost control of their vehicle, thus leading to the collision with your vehicle.  Your damages are $100,000 in total.  After further investigation, you find that — though the defendant was negligent in the operation of their vehicle — the defendant’s vehicle malfunctioned at the time of the accident, and that this malfunction was caused by the negligence of the defendant’s auto mechanic.  Suppose that the mechanic is 50 percent liable for your injuries.  Even if you cannot recover anything from the uninsured motorist, you would, at the very least, be able to secure $50,000 in damages from the liable mechanic.

Contact us today to discuss your legal rights and options.

In the stereotypical case, motor vehicle accident claims are associated with negligent or reckless operation of a vehicle by a driver.  For example, the injured plaintiff may have a legitimate claim to bring against the defendant-driver for distracted driving, or excessive speeding (which caused the accident at-issue).  There are certainly situations that call for unique liabilities, however.

In some cases, you may find yourself in a situation where you have a claim against a property owner or possessor of land.  More specifically, the defendant may have contributed to your injuries by having failed to maintain their property in a reasonably safe condition (thereby exposing you to a dangerous condition of their property, or in other words, a hazard), or by failing to warn drivers of latent dangers existing on such property.

Premises Liability Basics

In Arizona, the rules of premises liability are quite simple (and they are readily applied to such defendants in motor vehicle accident scenarios).  Essentially, you may have a claim against the defendant property owner or possessor if the defendant fails to maintain their premises in a reasonably safe condition, or if the defendant fails to warn or otherwise give notice to premises entrants of non-obvious, dangerous hazards.

All this legal terminology can be fairly confusing to the untrained reader, so for the purpose of clarity, let’s run through a quick and basic example.

Suppose that you are involved in an accident in the parking lot of a major retailer.  You were driving and a non-obvious pit caused your car to fall in and you sustained damages as a result.  Interestingly, however, there were no signs warning of the drop, nor was there any indication of the drop.

You could almost certainly assert that the defendant property owner (or possessor) failed in their duty to maintain the property in a reasonably safe condition for visitors in the parking lot — had the defendant corrected the condition (by filling in the pit) or setup cones or other warnings of the hazard, then the defendant would’ve been shielded from liability.  Given these circumstances, however, the defendant is likely to be held liable for your injuries.

Importantly, defendants in Arizona have different duties towards premises entrants depending on the “category” that the entrants fit into.

For example, trespassers are not entitled to sue and recover damages on the basis of premises liability unless the trespasser can show that the defendant was willful or wanton in causing harm.  In the motor vehicle context, this means that if you get lost and end up trespassing on property (and are subsequently injured due to some hazard of the property), you will not be entitled to compensation except in limited circumstances.

By comparison, property owners owe a duty of care to licensee (an invited guest or customer) visitors that requires them to adequately warn such visitors of the concealed dangers on their property, or to correct such hazards.

If you have been injured in a motor vehicle accident, you may not be aware that Arizona law entitles you to sue and recover damages from all negligent parties that caused your injuries, not just drivers.  Landowners may also be held liable if some dangerous condition or hazard existing on their property significantly contributed to your injuries.  Pursuing a defendant on the basis of premises liability involves unique litigation challenges.  As such, it’s important that you consult with an experienced Phoenix accident lawyer who has a track record of success in litigating motor vehicle accident claims that involved premises liability issues.

Hirsch & Lyon is a Phoenix-based personal injury firm with a focus on personal injury cases.  Our attorneys are therefore well-positioned to litigate your motor vehicle accident claims to the fullest extent.

Call (602) 535-1900 to connect with one of the attorneys here at Hirsch & Lyon.  Initial consultation is free, and we will take the time to assess your claims and determine a path forward to recovery.

Those unfamiliar with or new to the process of litigation may not realize the importance of expert witnesses in helping to construct an effective claim.  Depending on the circumstances of the case, the testimony of an expert witness can substantially affect the outcome of the lawsuit itself.

What Makes an Expert Witness Different Than a Fact Witness?

An expert witness is a witness with specialized knowledge, training, or proficiency who is brought in to testify in the form of an opinion as to matters related to their specialty — for example, an expert witness (qualified orthopedic surgeon) might be retained to provide their opinion on the extent of damage caused by a botched orthopedic surgery, and to discuss the standard of care that would normally apply to a surgeon in the circumstances.

Critically, expert witnesses provide opinion testimony.  They do not offer direct, observational testimony as to the facts of the case.

By contrast, a factual witness is an individual who is brought in to testify as to the particular facts of the case, based on their personal knowledge and observation thereof.  For example, a factual witness who observed a car accident occurring at an intersection (in other words, an eyewitness) would testify as to the sequence of events and how it played out in front of them, to the best of their knowledge.  They would not be entitled to provide their opinion on case-related matters.

How Expert Testimony Helps

Expert testimony can be used in a variety of ways.  Consider the following non-exhaustive examples:

• Accident reconstruction experts may testify as to how the accident might have occurred given their assessment of the available evidence;
• Medical experts may testify as to the damages, the injuries, and other medically-related issues;
• Industry experts may testify as to the plaintiff’s potential earning capacity given their limited abilities following the accident;
• Product experts and engineering experts may testify as to product defects in a product liability case;
• And more

Undermining and Supporting the Credibility of an Expert

Both plaintiff and defendant will make use of expert witnesses.  As such, it’s important — strategically speaking — for each party to undermine the credibility of the experts retained by the other side, and to strengthen the credibility of the experts they themselves retain.  You may, for example, challenging the admissibility of an expert witness’s testimony, or alternatively, you could challenge the reliability of such testimony.

If you have been injured due to the fault of another (in a car, truck, or motorcycle accident), you may be entitled to receive compensation pursuant to Arizona law.  Successful litigation of your claim requires top-notch execution of a number of different aspects.  In litigating your claim, it’s therefore important to keep in mind the value of expert witnesses in providing testimony that supports your various assertions (and undermines those of the defendant).

Hirsch & Lyon is a personal injury firm based out of Phoenix, and our attorneys have over 65 years of combined experience representing clients throughout the state of Arizona.  Our firm offers a number of unique advantages to clients — we are focused on personal injury cases, and we also offer discounted contingency fees, ensuring that our clients keep a larger percentage cut of their damages after litigation has come to an end.

Call (602) 535-1900 to connect with a Phoenix accident lawyer here at Hirsch & Lyon.  Initial consultation is free, and we will take the time to assess your claims and help you determine the ideal path to recovery.

Long Beach – The city know for its waterfront attractions, is the 7^th most populated city in California. With its moderate weather conditions, this city attracts a lot of tourists. The California State University of Long Beach is one of the largest enrolling universities in California with a significant number of students coming from other cities and nations. This city offers endless job and business opportunities too. But having this much incoming traffic increases the risk of getting into accidents as well. The higher the volume of traffic, the higher is the chance of getting into an accident.  Long Beach car accident stats have elevated over time, with an average of 1,855 car accidents per year. It has the highest Traffic collision and death rate.

If you are in long Beach, California, and get affected due to a traffic collision or a car accident, and you get injured, or you suffer a material loss due to someone else’s fault, you can get legal help from a Car Accident Lawyer in Long Beach. They offer the best services in all kinds of legal stipulations attached to your scenario, no matter how complicated your case may be.

Car accidents, Insurance claims, negotiations, dealing with insurance settlers, and getting compensation for your loss and injuries feels like a laborious yet complex task to manage, but having the right kind of legal help by your side can work like a miracle, especially when you only pay for your help if you get compensated right!

Car Accidents are nightmares and the two most basic things that follow them are, first, getting immediate medical help and the second is, getting immediate legal help for your loss and injuries. Why do you have to pay for hospital bills? Or for your material damage, when your lawyer can get you compensated for both! Yes, it is possible. Under the law, you can get compensated for a traffic collision that caused you to harm due to someone else’s negligence or recklessness. This harm includes all sorts of damages, either those are material, physical or emotional. You can even get compensated for your loss of income, medical bills, and may get compensated for economic losses that may occur due to some injury that may affect your finances in the future. Furthermore, having legal representation at your side will not only help you in negotiating with your insurance agent, and the party at-fault for compensations of your losses throughout of court settlement, but will also make sure that grounds for formal court settlement are laid down if the negotiations fail. Insurance agents are tricky to handle, the insurance companies often offer unfair or limited settlements for your loss, and this could not only make matter worse for you financially but will also affect your mental health. Such situations can emotionally distress you to drain you. So, you should let someone professional and experienced, handle your case.

At this point, not only a lawyer can help you with an informal out-of-court settlement but can also help you with a formal settlement and evidence collection that can be crucial for winning your case. So, get legal help as soon as you get affected in a traffic accident.

In Arizona, if you have been injured in a car accident (or any other accident) due to the negligence of a defendant-driver who is an employee acting within the course and scope of their employment at the time of the accident, then you may be entitled to sue and recover damages from their employer.  This is known as the doctrine of vicarious liability.

What is Vicarious Liability?

Vicarious liability — also known as respondeat superior — is a doctrine implemented by the state of Arizona (and many other states) that holds employers liable for the negligence committed by their employees.  A claim brought against an employer pursuant to vicarious liability is not separate or distinct in any way from the claim that you would otherwise bring against the driver.  If you are bringing a claim against the employer for contributing to your injuries (i.e., asserting that the employer negligently hired or supervised the employee driver), then that will be separate and distinct from your vicarious liability claim.

This can all be rather complicated to understand, at first glance, so let’s go through a quick example for clarification.

Imagine that you suffer injuries in a car accident involving a pizza delivery driver.  The driver was operating their vehicle negligently at the time of the accident, and was on their way to delivering pizzas to customers.  You could ostensibly sue and recover damages from both the driver and their pizzeria employer.

In some cases, the employer may contribute to the accident by acting negligently themselves.  For example, if the pizzeria in the previous example was aware that the driver had a long history of reckless driving (i.e., license suspensions, drunk driving, numerous accidents, etc.), then you may be able to bring a separate claim against the pizzeria employer for negligent hiring/supervision.

Course and Scope of Employment

In order to successfully bring a claim pursuant to vicarious liability, you must show that the driver was acting within the course and scope of their employment.  In other words, you must show that the driver was either performing his or her regular job duties, or were otherwise furthering some legitimate business purpose at the time of the accident.  For example, if the driver left work and was driving to meet some friends for dinner, that would likely not count as acting “within the course and scope” of their employment.

When determining whether the driver’s actions are within the course and scope of their employment, the court will look the the extent to which the driver was subject to the control of their employer.  The greater amount of control over the driver’s behavior that the employer can exert, the more likely it is that a court will find that the driver was acting within the course and scope of their employment.

In a surprising number of car accident cases, the defendant-driver is in fact an employee (acting within the course and scope of their employment), thus making the lawsuit somewhat more complicated, and potentially, making it more likely that the plaintiff can receive full compensation for their injuries.  Critically, Arizona law entitles plaintiffs to sue and recover damages from the employer on the basis of vicarious liability, but it only applies in certain circumstances.

Connect with an experienced Phoenix car accident lawyer here at Hirsch & Lyon.  Call (602) 535-1900 today.  Initial consultation is free — our attorneys will assess your claims and help you navigate the litigation process.

We look forward to speaking with you.

If you have been injured in a motor vehicle accident due to the negligence of another person or entity, you may be entitled to recover damages as compensation for your injuries.  Proving that the defendant was acting negligently can be quite difficult, but in some cases, negligence may be proven if you can show that the defendant violated certain laws in causing the accident at-issue.

When a statutory violation leads to an automatic finding of negligence, that is known as “negligence per se.”  In the Arizona motor vehicle accident context, negligence per se is a legal doctrine that can significantly strengthen your case.

What is negligence per se?

Stated simply, negligence per se is automatic negligence.  In a standard negligence situation, you would have to establish a standard of care, and prove that the defendant failed to adhere to that standard of care.  With negligence per se, the defendant’s law-breaking behavior serves as automatic proof of negligence.

Arizona imposes a few requirements on plaintiffs attempting to prove negligence per se, however.  Violation of a law only serves as proof of negligence if:

• The law must be enacted for the protection and safety of the public; and
• The law expresses rules of conduct in specific and concrete terms.

In other words, the law must be related to public safety and must be explicit (and specific) about what behavior is prohibited.  Generally speaking, traffic violations tend to fall within the category of laws that qualify for a negligence per se finding.

For example, in the state of Arizona, pursuant to section 28-797 of the Arizona Revised Statutes, drivers may not travel at greater than fifteen miles per hour in a school zone while school is in session.  The law is enacted for the safety of the public, and is quite specific in its terms.  If a driver is traveling at greater than fifteen miles per hour and thereafter collides with and injures a student, the driver may be found negligent per se — and could be held liable.

Finding that the defendant has committed negligence — either standard negligence or negligence per se — does not mean that a lawsuit is won, however.  To succeed, you will have to show that the negligence committed by the defendant actually and proximately caused your injuries.  If the defendant violated some traffic law, but that violation did not actually result in the accident at-issue, then you cannot hold them liable (even if they were negligent).

Personal injury claims — including those where the defendant is likely to be found negligent per se — may seem straightforward at first glance, but can be complicated by a number of different factors.  Even where the defendant is found negligent, you will have to show that the defendant’s negligent acts caused your injuries, and further, you will have to successfully persuade the jury to accept your damages assertion as a reasonable estimation of your actual damages.  In the litigation context, there is a significant gulf between a “win” and a “huge success.”  As such, you’ll want to work with attorneys who have a long track record of success representing clients in injury litigation — and more specifically, in car, motorcycle, and truck accident litigation.

Call (602) 535-1900 today to speak with an experienced Phoenix injury lawyer here at Hirsch & Lyon.  During your initial free consultation, your attorney will assess your various claims and work with you to develop a plan of action for pursuing litigation.

If you have been injured due to a pedestrian accident at a crosswalk, you may not only be entitled to recover damages from the defendant-driver who collided with you — you may also be entitled to recover damages from the person/entity that owns or otherwise controls the crosswalk on which you were injured.  Crosswalks attract pedestrian traffic, as they are intended to be “safe zones” for pedestrians.  When crosswalks represent a hazard to pedestrians, however, with no adequate warning of the dangers therein, then the defendant who owns or controls the crosswalk may be held liable.

Crosswalk injuries fall under the premises liability framework.  What this means is that you’ll have to show that the crosswalk was unreasonably dangerous for those making use of the property.  By introducing evidence that the crosswalk was designed or maintained in such a way that it presented a danger to pedestrians, you can more effectively litigate your injury claim.

There are a number of factors that contribute towards making a crosswalk dangerous.  Let’s explore a few common ones.

Visibility Issues

Crosswalks must be reasonably visible to oncoming traffic at all times.  There are a number of visibility issues that can crop up: vegetation growing in adjacent property may be poorly trimmed and may therefore interfere with sight-lines, or there may be inadequate street lighting.  If visibility of the crosswalk is a serious concern even after certain measures have been implemented, signs should be installed to give drivers warning of the crosswalk ahead.

Traffic Flow Requires Additional Measures

Depending on the street, traffic flow may be high volume, high speed, and otherwise complicated (i.e., the street has many mergers close to the crosswalk) by various factors.  In such cases, the standard safety measures implemented at a crosswalk may not be enough.  Additional crosswalk safety measures — such as blinking crosswalk lights — may be necessary to sufficiently manipulate traffic flow and create a safe environment for pedestrians.

Failure to Consider Pedestrian Age, Health, and Ability

Crosswalks do not exist in a vacuum.  Reasonable crosswalk design considers the type of pedestrian foot traffic that will be using the crosswalk.  For example, if a crosswalk is built next to an adult disability center, then it should take into account that many of the pedestrians using the crosswalk will have to use the crosswalk in a slower and more deliberate manner.

Crosswalk Signals Not Working

A well-designed crosswalk must be properly maintained in order to remain safe for pedestrian use.  In fact, if a crosswalk has existing signals that suddenly stop working, or is otherwise in disrepair, it could serve as a “trap” that lures in pedestrians who believe that the crosswalk is safe to use.  If the property owner (or possessor) fails to maintain the crosswalk in safe condition, and a pedestrian is injured as a result, they could be held liable.

Inherent Danger Revealed by Accident History

A substantial pedestrian accident history at the crosswalk is proof that it is inherently dangerous and therefore needs to be modified or removed.  If a property owner is aware of a high volume of pedestrian accidents occurring at the crosswalk, it will operate in some cases as notice of the dangerous condition of the crosswalk.

If you have been injured in a pedestrian accident due to the fault of another, you may be entitled to recover damages as compensation for your injuries, pursuant to Arizona law.  Your pedestrian accident case should be handled with seriousness and care.  To ensure that your case is handled effectively, contact an experienced Phoenix pedestrian accident attorney here at Hirsch & Lyon.  Call (602) 535-1900 today.  Initial consultation is free — our attorneys will assess your claims and help you navigate the litigation process.

We look forward to speaking with you.

In Arizona, as in other states, punitive damages are awarded only rarely in auto accident lawsuits, though when a punitive damages award is granted by the court, it tends to make a splash in the media.  Punitive damages are awarded on the basis of the compensatory damages in a given lawsuit.  If the compensatory damages amount is significant, the punitive damages award can push the total damages up to a degree that is shocking to some.  Many injury lawsuits that have entered pop-culture have done so on the basis of punitive damage awards that capture the imagination of observers.

For example, suppose that you are injured in a serious auto accident, and your total compensatory damages add up to $500,000.  If the court awards punitive damages in your case (say, three times the compensatory damages), then the total damages will be $2,000,000.  Oftentimes, “million dollar” injury lawsuits involve a punitive damages award.

Punitive damages are quite unlike other forms of damages, so it’s important to understand that a claim for punitive damages is not made on the same basis as a claim for lost wages, or medical expenses.

Punitive Damages Are Unique

Punitive damages function differently than compensatory damages.

A claim for compensatory damages (i.e., pain and suffering, past and future medical expenses, lost earnings, loss of earning capacity, loss of enjoyment of life, etc.) is put forth on the basis that you — the plaintiff — are entitled to financial compensation for your injuries.  Compensatory damages are an attempt to put you in a position that best approximates your pre-injury condition.

Punitive damages, on the other hand, are awarded as a means of punishing the defendant for their wrongdoing and deterring others from similar misconduct in the future.  Punitive damages are not meant to compensate the plaintiff for their injuries (though punitive damages are paid out to the plaintiff).

Qualifying for Punitive Damages

The Arizona Civil Jury Instructions clearly illustrate the requirements for asserting a claim for punitive damages.  Punitive damages may be available if you can show that:

• The defendant intended to cause your injuries;
• The defendant’s conduct was motivated by ill will; or
• The defendant consciously disregarded the substantial risk of injury that his conduct might expose others to.

In the auto accident context, punitive damages may therefore be available in cases where:

• The defendant was enraged and intentionally rammed your vehicle.
• The defendant was intoxicated.
• The defendant was racing on the highway and therefore consciously disregarding the risk of injury posed to the public.
• And more.

Though punitive damages are rare, they may be awarded in cases where the defendant’s conduct is particularly egregious.

Punitive damages are — perhaps unsurprisingly — rare in the personal injury context, including auto accidents.  Unfortunately, many attorneys mistakenly pre-judge the situation and fail to assert a claim for punitive damages when there may actually be legitimate reasons justifying punitive damages.  When looking for an attorney to advocate on your behalf in an auto accident injury lawsuit, you not only want to find an attorney who has experience successfully litigating auto accidents, but you also want to find an attorney who is bold enough to pursue punitive damages when appropriate.

Hirsch & Lyon is an Arizona personal injury firm that has specialized in auto accident claims, and have secured punitive damage awards in the past.  If you have been injured in an auto accident, call (602) 535-1900 to setup a free consultation with a Phoenix injury lawyer here at Hirsch & Lyon.  Our attorneys will assess your claims and help you execute an effective strategy as you move forward with litigation.

In Arizona, those who suffer injuries due to the negligent acts of another are entitled to recover damages as compensation for their injuries, even when they have contributed in some way to their own injuries.  Unfortunately, many potential claimants in Arizona are not aware that they may recover in situations where they were negligent — an injury claimant might avoid consulting with an attorney despite having a legitimate claim for damages.  It’s important that accident victims in Arizona understand that their claims may be legitimate even if they were partially at-fault in the circumstances.

For example, if you were injured in a car accident, but you were also speeding at the time (and the speeding contributed to your injuries), you would not be barred from litigating your claims and obtaining compensation.

Arizona allocates fault to different parties in an injury lawsuit based on their proportional contribution of fault.  To better understand how this system works, let’s go through some of the basics of the comparative fault doctrine.

Comparative Fault Basics

Arizona implements the doctrine of pure comparative fault, also known as pure comparative negligence.  The pure comparative fault doctrine is particularly beneficial for personal injury claimants, such as those who have been injured in a car accident, truck accident, or motorcycle accident.

How does comparative fault work?

The principle of comparative fault is actually rather straightforward.  Essentially, in a comparative fault system such as the one that Arizona adheres to, each party involved in an accident is assigned a percentage of the total fault (i.e., plaintiff is deemed 20% at-fault, defendant #1 is deemed 40% at-fault, and defendant #2 is deemed 40% at-fault).  Comparative fault operates as a defense, but it is not an absolute defense that bars the plaintiff’s recovery.  Instead, comparative fault will reduce the plaintiff’s total damage recovery in proportion with their fault contribution.

This can be a bit confusing without adequate real-world context.  Consider the following example.

Suppose that you are injured in a car accident while making a left turn onto a local road.  You are a bit distracted, and are not paying full attention when you turn out into the road.  You do not realize that the defendant-driver is speeding towards your position.  As the defendant is driving at such an excessive speed, they cannot slow down and avoid you.  A collision occurs and you suffer serious injuries as a result.  The court finds that you are 40% at-fault, and the defendant is 60% at-fault.

Your total recoverable damages will be reduced accordingly.  As such, given the fault percentages, for a claim where you assert $200,000 damages in total, you would be entitled to recover just $120,000.  Though you are significantly at-fault for your injuries, you are not barred from recovery altogether.  In fact, you could be 99% at-fault and still recover damages in Arizona, thanks to the pure comparative fault doctrine.

Willful or Wanton Conduct

Arizona does not apply comparative fault in favor of any party in a situation where they have intentionally, wilfully, or wantonly caused or contributed to the injuries at-issue.  If you are injured in an accident that the defendant caused due to their road rage, for example, then they would likely not be allowed to raise the comparative fault defense and have their liability reduced (in proportion with the fault percentages).

Unlike other firms who have a range of disparate legal experiences, our attorneys are well-equipped to litigate motor vehicle accident claims and secure favorable results for our injured clients — whether through trial or settlement negotiation.

If you have been injured in a motor vehicle accident, Arizona law may entitle you to compensation, even if you contributed to your injuries through some negligence of your own.  To ensure that your claim is litigated effectively, call (602) 535-1900 today to schedule a free consultation with an experienced Phoenix accident lawyer here at Hirsch & Lyon.

We look forward to helping you.

Airbags are critical to the safety of both drivers and passengers in the event of an accident (and in fact, some motorcycles even provide frontal airbags as an option when purchasing).  The introduction of airbags to American automotive culture has generally been considered a net positive, despite some hiccups along the way.  According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), reported by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), 44,869 lives have been saved by frontal airbags as of 2015, while 2,252 lives have been saved by side airbags as of 2012.

Though airbags are a safety device, the potential for injury caused by or exacerbated by a defective airbag is significant.  For maximum effectiveness, an airbag must deploy in a very particular manner during a very narrow window of time.  The NHTSA estimates that — in low speed crashes alone — there were 290 fatalities caused by frontal airbag deployment from 1990 to 2008.  Many of fatalities and serious injuries associated with frontal airbags during that period were due to the excessive force of airbag deployment, though there were (and continue to be) many other reasons for airbag-related injuries.

If you have been injured due to an airbag deploying in a hazardous manner, or perhaps because an airbag simply failed to deploy, then Arizona law may entitle you to compensation for your injuries pursuant to a defective product claim.  Product liability law in Arizona operates somewhat similarly to that of other states.  Let’s take a brief look at how it works.

Product Liability Fundamentals

In Arizona, as in many other states, those injured by a defective product — stated in simple terms, a product that is unreasonably dangerous to those who use the product in a foreseeable manner — are entitled to sue the manufacturer of the product (and, ostensibly, those in the chain of distribution) to recover damages.  Product liability in Arizona makes manufacturers strictly liable for the injuries caused by their defective products.  As a plaintiff, you do not have to prove that the manufacturer negligently created a defective product, such as a defective airbag that failed to deploy — you need only prove that the manufacturer created a defective product.

Proving that the manufacturer created and distributed a defective product is not a simple, straightforward matter.  Your attorney will have to show that the product was unreasonably dangerous given the circumstances.

A plaintiff may show that a product is defective through the consumer expectations test or the risk/benefit analysis test (each may be applicable or inapplicable in different circumstances).  In the consumer expectations test, if a product fails to perform as an ordinary consumer would reasonably expect it to perform, then the product would be deemed defective.  In the risk/benefit analysis test, if the injury risks resulting from a product’s design outweigh the benefits of the design, then the product would be deemed defective.

For example, in a defective airbag case involving an assertion of defective design, if it were revealed that the airbag manufacturer used cheaper materials to save 3% on their manufacturing costs, but this resulted in a 50% spike in fatal accidents, then the airbag would likely be deemed defective under a risk/benefit analysis test.

There are three major types of product liability claims in Arizona.

Design defect claims are brought on the basis that the design of the product exposes foreseeable users to an unreasonable risk of injury.

Manufacturing defect claims are generally limited to “batches” of a product.  A manufacturing defect claim might assert that, due to some mishap or mistake in the factory, the airbag at-issue was made with a defect that caused it to deploy with excessive force.

In a failure to warn claim, the plaintiff asserts that the product at-issue exposes users to an inherent risk of injury, and that the defendant failed to warn users of this inherent risk and provide instructions on how to avoid it.

Defective airbag claims can be incredibly difficult to litigate, not only due to the inherent complications of litigation involving a complex product (i.e., factual issues, the need to retain industry experts, etc.), but also because the defendant is often a corporate entity with significant financial and industry clout.  To maximize your chance of success, it’s important to work with a qualified Phoenix car accident lawyer who has experience litigating defective airbag claims and other product liability claims.  Call (602) 535-1900 to setup a free consultation with one of the experienced accident lawyers at Hirsch & Lyon today.