Phoenix Personal Injury Lawyer - Motor Vehicle Accidents

Phoenix Bans Texting While Driving

Staff Writer — Mon, 24 Sep 2007 08:41:16 GMT

Last week, Phoenix became the first city in the nation to ban text messaging while driving. Based on dangers associated with distracted driving, city officials concluded that the dangers of text messaging while driving outweigh any possible public benefits. For the next thirty days, police officers and other public officials will notify and educate drivers about the dangers of texting while driving and the civil penalty imposed of up to $100 if you are caught texting and driving.

Other cities have been quick to follow with similar proposals to ban texting. In fact, the City of Scottsdale Transportation Committee may recommend to the Scottsdale City Council that it enact a similar ban based on a goal of reducing driver distractions which can lead to collisions.

How will police enforce such a ban? While we can appreciate the goal of reducing collisions caused by driver distractions, will the ban actually accomplish this goal? Perhaps it might. However, I am not sure drivers will change texting behavior as a result of the recent City Council action. I would guess that younger drivers use text messaging features on their wireless phones more than any other class of drivers in our state. Perhaps other oversight actions such as raising the legal driving age to eighteen may accomplish similar objectives backed by easier enforcement. What do you think? Do you believe this ban will affect driver behavior? Will it discourage you from getting into your vehicle and typing a text message on your phone while you are driving down Central Avenue in Phoenix? Let me know your thoughts.

For more information on this subject matter, please refer to the section on Car and Motorcycle Accidents.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Staff Writer

One Girl Dies, One Injured, After Falling into Mine Shaft

Jenny Albano — Sun, 02 Sep 2007 18:25:17 GMT

A 13 year-old girl and a 10 year-old girl fell into a mine shaft while riding on an All-Terrain Vehicle in Chloride, Arizona. The 13 year-old was pronounced dead and the 10 year-old had serious injuries when the girls were found on Sunday, September 2. The 10 year-old was transported to University Medical Center in Nevada and was reported to be in critical condition on Sunday afternoon.

Seth Johnson, a neighbor of the girls and their family's landlord, said the two were half-sisters and identified them as 13-year-old Rikki Howard and 10-year-old Casie Hicks. Officials had not released their identities Sunday afternoon.

The two girls disappeared around 7 P.M. Saturday night and were found the next morning.

"There's a significant amount of abandoned mines out there that are hazardous to the public's health. Most of those mines are from old prospectors who would go in and they would mine and they'd just pick up leave. And there are some very dangerous ones that are very deep," said Laurie Swartzbaugh, deputy director of the Arizona State Mine Inspector's office.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Jenny Albano

Should Arizona Reconsider Statutory Immunity for Negligent Freeway Maintenance?

Staff Writer — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 10:13:36 GMT

A couple of days have passed since the tragic bridge collapse in Minneapolis which led to the deaths of at least five people. The cause of the bridge collapse on I-35W will not be known for quite some time. However, if the I-35W bridge collapsed due to ordinary wear and tear, such a tragedy may have been avoided had the Minnesota Department of Transportation placed a higher priority on bridge repair rather than continuously deferring needed maintenance. According to MSNBC, in 2005, the bridge had been rated by Federal Government inspectors as a step above "intolerable" needing major safety related reinforcements, upgrades or replacement. In 2005, the bridge had been considered

deemed to have met "minimum tolerable limits to be left in place as it is," according to the federal National Bridge Inventory database of inspection records.

Because it supposedly met minimum tolerable limits, it appears that safety and upgrade funds were not prioritized toward repair or upgrade work on this bridge. Two years later, the bridge collapsed. I guess that sometime after 2005, the bridge stopped meeting "minimum tolerable limits to be left in place as it its." At what point did this tragedy become preventable? What money could have been made available to do repair work on this bridge after Minnesota transportation officials received notice of safety dangers in 2005? If such a tragic event occurred in Arizona, would the State be held accountable for its refusal to make highway repairs right away? The answer to this question depends in large part on a review of statutes granting the state and other governmental entities immunity from suits challenging its policy and resource allocation decisions.

In Arizona, public entities may not be held responsible for negligence involving the exercise of fundamental government policy including:

1. A determination of whether to seek or whether to provide the resources necessary for any of the following:
(a) The purchase of equipment.
(b) The construction or maintenance of facilities.
(c) The hiring of personnel.
(d) The provision of governmental services.

Generally this means that if the Arizona Department of Transportation made a reasoned decision and considered yet rejected allocating resources to fix a bridge problem, the State may not necessarily be held accountable for its negligent decisions not to provide resources for construction or maintenance. However, it seems to me that if decisions not to allocate resources toward a particular safety project violate reasonable and sound engineering principles which later prove dangerously fatal, the State should not be immune from accountability for negligence. If the State contracted with a private company to make engineering resource-allocation decisions and the company acted negligently, it would accountable to the victims of its misplaced decisions. Why then should our State receive immunity for the same wrongdoing? I believe it may be time to re-examine the reasons for the legislative grant of immunity to this public entity. I wonder how quickly Department of Transportation officials would allocate monies to road and bridge repair knowing they would be held accountable for any unreasonable delays.

With current immunity protections in place, the Arizona Department of Transportation in its Traffic Engineering Policies, Guidelines and Procedures manual appears to prioritize safety projects by comparing the costs of safety countermeasures to the costs of fatalities, injuries and property damages. It suggests that each person's life should be valued at $3,000,000 and considers safety projects purely mathematically to minimize costs. Based on the agency policy manual, it will not commit to roadway safety countermeasures or modifications unless the costs of all fatalities, serious injuries and vehicle damages exceed the costs of safety improvements. Apparently the Arizona Department of Transportation is willing to accept death and injury on our state's roadways so long as the aggregate costs for deaths, injuries and vehicle property damages do not exceed the costs for bridge repair, installation of guard rails or other safety improvements. Does this mathematical justification for acceptable death and injury sound reasonable? Do you believe the State should place a value on life and only commit to safety projects when the safety project costs less than the total costs of lives for which it values at $3,000,000 per person? Does this economic model exclude social and non-economic costs of death, injury, property loss and disfigurement? What would happen in Arizona if a highway bridge collapsed. Applying the Arizona Department of Transportation economic formula to the bridge collapse tragedy which occurred in Minnesota, if the bridge repair costs exceeded $15,000,000, representing how the department values the loss of life of five people, policy-makers would accept such losses in Arizona. This is true even if decision-makers received notice of structural problems a few years prior.

Perhaps removing immunity protections for the decisions made by our state transportation department officials will ensure that freeway safety maintenance and upkeep projects occur quickly and efficiently and that the costs of safety improvements will not be compared to the cost of human life before considering particular hazard elimination projects.

What do you think? Should the Arizona Department of Transportation continue to receive immunity protection from various lawsuits against it? Are you satisfied with the safety decisions made and roadway projects undertaken by our Arizona Department of Transportation? Should the Department set as a goal the elimination of all hazards on our roadways or are some hazards, deaths and injuries simply acceptable? I'd like to hear your thoughts.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Staff Writer

Legislature Passes Bill Limiting Teen Driving

Staff Writer — Mon, 14 May 2007 16:37:25 GMT

Last week, the Arizona Legislature passed the Teenage Driver Safety Act, legislation which places driving limitations on new young drivers to help minimize risk of automobile accidents. The bill limits teens as follows:

The act provides for driving restrictions from midnight to 5 a.m. and passenger limitations for the first six months a new teen driver holds a Class G driver's license.

According to AAA Arizona, limiting when and with whom teens can drive affects the safety of the driving public.

a teen driver's risk of an accident goes up 39 percent simply by having another teen in the car.

The bill places a curfew on when teens can drive and limits the number of other teens who can accompany a teenage driver. Governor Napolitano has until today to decide whether to sign the legislation.

Do you believe this legislation will make a difference? Will criminalizing teenage behavior reduce accident rates or does this legislation present yet another example of big government making decisions for us and our families? Will teenage drivers care about following these driving restrictions? I'd like to hear your opinions about whether Governor Napolitano should sign this bill.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Staff Writer

Legislature to Consider Alcohol Interlock Devices for DUI Offenders

Staff Writer — Sat, 14 Apr 2007 09:00:00 GMT

The Arizona House of Representatives has preliminarily passed a tough DUI bill requiring offenders to place ignition interlock devices on their vehicles which would prevent them from drinking and driving. The legislation apparently has enough support to pass the legislature and will likely go to the Governor's office for signature. The legislation designed to prevent alcohol-related motor vehicle accidents, Senate Bill 1029, first started out as a measure to place even tougher jail penalties on drivers who have blood alcohol concentrations higher than .20. During floor debate, however, the bill was amended to include vehicle ignition interlock requirements on vehicles of all people convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol. According to the amendment sponsor, requiring ignition interlock devices can act as a preventative measure to reduce drunk driving accidents on our roadways.

What do you think about this legislation? By requiring jail time for extreme DUI offenders and requiring ignition interlock devices on offenders' cars, do you think we will see a reduction in alcohol-related car accidents? I fully support any reasonable and cost-effective approaches to reduce the dangers of drunk driving. Arizona has not been successful at reducing alcohol related fatalities. Maybe now is the time to try something new. I am not sure whether increasing jail-time punishment will lower alcohol-related accident rates. However, ignition interlock devices could certainly prevent offenders from repeatedly drinking and acting dangerously. For this reason, I think this legislation presents a good opportunity. I hope the legislature supports it and the Governor signs it. I'd like to hear your thoughts about this bill.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Staff Writer

Alcohol, Driving and Punitive Damages

Staff Writer — Wed, 11 Apr 2007 12:25:16 GMT

In Arizona if you are impaired by drugs or alcohol but still make a conscious decision to drive and later cause an accident, did you know that you not only will face criminal charges and jail time but you also will likely face civil penalties which are non-dischargeable in bankruptcy? In other words, making stupid decisions can cost you. In addition to facing jail time, you will likely face a civil judgment for actual and punitive damages. Actual damages relate to actual harm a victim suffers as a direct result of the bad decisions a drunk driver makes. Punitive damages punish the wrongdoer for the conscious disregard of the substantial and known risks of harm facing an impaired driver. The best decision a drunk can make is not to drive at all. Organizations such as MADD have in place a national campaign to end drunk driving. Hopefully, in addition to MADD and other campaigns to end drunk driving, risks of substantial jail time and civil judgments can convince a drunk to act responsibly.

When a drunk driver gets into a car and causes a crash, everybody loses. The victim of the drunk driver's behavior loses because too often, this person faces very serious physical injuries. The drunk driver loses because his or her conduct will lead to a loss of liberty and large monetary penalties and an likely civil judgment for actual and punitive damages. The public also loses because the drunk driver's conduct increases costs of insurance, police protection and adds to overall dangers on our state's roadways. Arizona has already received national attention about the number of drinking-related fatalities in the past. In the past, I have also written about how Arizona fares when comparing alcohol-related crashes to other states in the nation. Each of us can eliminate dangers associated with drunk driving by simply refusing to drive drunk and taking a cab, relying on a designated driver or staying home. Do not become another statistic in Arizona. Act responsibly and help to eliminate drunk driving on our roadways one driver at a time.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Staff Writer

Phoenix Receives Failing Grade for Driver Safety

Staff Writer — Sat, 07 Apr 2007 09:30:00 GMT

Men's Health Magazine just published its rankings for the safest and most dangerous drivers in the country. It based its rankings on

the rate of fatal accidents, as well as the deaths caused specifically by speeding, both from the National Highway traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). In addition, we pulled city statistics on accident frequency from Allstate Insurance. And then we used statewide numbers on speeding from the Governors Highway Safety Association, plus NHTSA state data on seatbelt use.

How did we rank, you might ask? Unfortunately, Phoenix did not rank well.

According to Men's Health Magazine, Phoenix, Arizona drivers receive a failing grade ranking twelfth for worst drivers in the country. Not such a good grade for the largest City in Arizona. What in Phoenix encourages people to drive so badly? One reason may relate to freeway capacity and daily traffic volume. The Department of Transportation funded and built several state freeways based upon capacity studies which we now know grossly underestimated actual traffic volume in our State. Therefore, freeways were designed and built with substantially less traffic in mind and with fewer safety features than necessary to accommodate actual traffic volume. Clearly, as people move to Arizona and traffic volume increases on our city roadways, the number of collisions increase as well. As traffic volumes rise, designers must add appropriate roadway safety features into roadway design and construction. Appropriate safety design features such as large roadside clear zones, median barrier protection, and crash cushions depend on acurate traffic volume estimates, design speeds and operating speeds. The failure to upgrade and maintain roadway safety features, together with larger than expected increasing traffic volume could certainly explain why Phoenix has higher per capita accident rates compared to other cities in the country. While these are just my thoughts about one explanation why Phoenix received a failing grade, I'd like to hear your thoughts as well.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Staff Writer

Auto Accidents, Medical Liens, Workers Compensation and Other Important Matters

Staff Writer — Tue, 27 Mar 2007 18:06:04 GMT

You have suffered injuries in an automobile collision through no fault of your own and have health insurance, medical payments coverage under your own insurance policy and your employer has workers compensation insurance. What do you do? Who should provide coverage for you in this time of loss? Should you submit healthcare expenses to your health insurance policy? Shouldn't the responsible party's insurance coverage provide sufficient protection for the losses incurred? What happens if you were working in the course and scope of employment at the time of the accident? Should worker's compensation cover your expenses? The answers to these questions present some complex issues that require a comprehensive case-by-case analysis.

Because facts about available coverages in times of need vary so widely from case to case, I will not in this article give specific suggestions or legal advice about what to do in times of loss. Some health insurance plans have rights to reimbursement out of third-party auto insurance proceeds while others do not. Some healthcare providers have the right to attempt to recover the full amount of a medical bill from a third party and some should not have this right. Some providers should not seek recovery for medical care beyond what health insurance has already paid. Other providers will attempt to seek additional reimbursement out of third party auto insurance proceeds. Worker's compensation carriers have the right to reimbursement out of third-party liability insurance proceeds depending upon nature and extent of third-party liability claims for injuries sustained in the course and scope of employment. If a worker's compensation carrier pays claims to an employee in the course and scope of employment and the claims involve liability on the part of a third-party, then the applicable statute of limitations requiring a party to file suit or forever lose the right to pursue a claim against a third party changes to one year from what typically would be two years from the date of loss. Medical payments insurance providers in connection with your own personal auto insurance policy may also have the right to seek reimbursement from third party insurance proceeds for claims paid above a certain amount. Certain healthcare and auto insurance policies may even have different implications if they were written out of state.

Confused? Issues involving available coverage, reimbursement obligations and applicable statute of limitations generally require legal analysis after reviewing case-specific information and details. Fellow Scottsdale attorney Geoffrey M. Trachtenberg recently posted an article explaining why you should seek legal advise in times of loss and explains in more detail about some of these important issues:

While everyone knows to hire an attorney who is good at "getting a recovery," few clients focus on hiring an attorney that is good at "keeping a recovery." They just don't know better. Most people don't know that, when someone receives a settlement or verdict of any size, there are typically numerous entities that assert a right and priority to payment out of the recovery. That is, before a client sees a dime from any recovery, these multiple entities typically demand some (or all) of the recovery pursuant to various legal, contractual and equitable rights.

So if you suffer injuries based on the fault of another, consider seeking legal advice to assist in working through these complex issues.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Staff Writer

Should Arizona Ban Drivers from Using Cellphones?

Staff Writer — Thu, 22 Mar 2007 23:13:49 GMT

According to an article in today's Arizona Daily Star a citizens group wants to place on the next election ballot an initiative to outlaw cellphone use while driving in order to lower risks of automobile accidents:

An initiative drive launched Wednesday would make it illegal for drivers to talk on their phones unless they are using a hand-free headset. Violators would be subject to a $100 fine; increasing to $200 if the motorist is in an accident.

I recently wrote that cellphone use while driving substantially increases the risks of automobile accidents. I cited a recent study suggesting that in terms of auto accident risks, using cellphones can be as dangerous as driving under the influence of alcohol.

The Arizona Daily Star article also cites a 2005 study by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety which concludes:

that motorists who chat while cruising are four times as likely to get injured in accidents.

While I agree that distracted drivers need to be held accountable for conduct which causes car accidents, I am not sure that a government imposed ban on cellphone use will be the proper method to minimize risks of harm. I believe that personal accountability and not government intervention is the proper approach to minimize harm. I am not convinced that a cellphone ban will be effective or necessary and may cause too many unintended consequences. What do you think? Do you support a government imposed ban on cellphone use while driving? Do you support holding drivers responsible if cellphone use caused or contributed to an accident? I'd like to hear your thoughts.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Staff Writer

Cellphone Use and Driving

Staff Writer — Fri, 16 Feb 2007 22:01:10 GMT

An article in today's Arizona Republic described the dangers of distractions and driving. According to the Republic, distracted drivers heighten risks of auto accidents:

Driver distractions, ranging from cellphones to eating behind the wheel, are blamed for as many as half the 139,000 collisions that occurred in Arizona during 2005, killing more than 1,100 people and injuring 70,000 others, said DPS Officer Tim Mason, a department spokesman.

The article suggests that distracted drivers increase the odds of a motor vehicle collision by fifty percent.

One form of distraction concerns cellphone use. A recent study published in the Summer, 2006 publication Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society compared the distraction of cellphone use to drinking and driving. Interestingly, the study found that based on risks of motor vehicle accidents, cellphone use in vehicles can be just as dangerous as drinking and driving.

In Arizona based upon the substantial and known risks of harm associated with drinking and driving, a person who makes a conscious decision to drink and drive and as a result causes a collision may subject themselves to an award of punitive damages. If the same substantial and known risks of harm exist for a person who talks on a cellphone and causes a crash, should that person also be subject to an award of punitive damages? What do you think?

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Staff Writer