Phoenix Personal Injury Lawyer - Premises Liability

Liability for Failure to Prevent Risks of Criminal Activity

Staff Writer — Mon, 30 Apr 2007 17:02:40 GMT

I read today that a female Circle K clerk in Tucson filed a lawsuit against her employer alleging that the company provided negligent security which allowed a customer to abduct and sexually assault her. According to the newspaper article in the Arizona Daily Star,

Circle K should have known of "criminal dangers" at that store. . . . [T]he company should have staffed at least two employees overnight and equipped the store with appropriate security measures, including an alarm or panic button.
"As a result of defendant Circle K breaching its duties as alleged above, plaintiff was left unreasonably vulnerable to an attack that was both reasonably foreseeable and reasonably preventable," the lawsuit states.

If a plaintiff sues a criminal for causing harm, clearly a jury would likely find the criminal responsible for the conduct causing injury. However, I am curious what you think about lawsuits alleging that a third-party defendant's negligence allowed a criminal act to occur. Do you believe an employer has a responsibility to take precautions to prevent work-place crime? Should a convenience store provide extra safety precautions for female employees working late night shifts? How about other criminal conduct? Does a bar have an obligation to prevent its customers from drinking to excess and driving? Do businesses have an obligation to secure computer systems to minimize risk of identity theft?

All of these scenarios look to hold others accountable for preventing forseeable criminal conduct. Do you believe that our society should hold third party defendants accountable for preventing forseeable risk of harm by other criminals? I believe a company or individual has such an obligation as long as the alleged criminal conduct involves reasonably forseeable behavior and that the failure to take reasonable precautions created an opportunity for a criminal to commit an illegal act. The nature of litigation would likely explore issues such as what industry standards or reasonable security precautions are available to protect individuals from harm and whether the lack of such precautions caused or contributed to the harm. In light of recent criminal tragedies, I'd like to hear your opinions about whether individuals or businesses should be held accountable for failing to take reasonable security precautions resulting in a means and an opportunity to engage in criminal activity. Does holding others accountable encourage society to take safety and security seriously?

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

Carnival Safety in Arizona

Staff Writer — Sat, 31 Mar 2007 14:42:29 GMT

Have you been to the State Fair? The Renaissance Festival in Casa Grande? Have you ever gone to any makeshift carnivals anywhere throughout the valley? If you have, then chances are great that you saw and rode on some temporary carnival rides. Have you ever wondered about the safety of these rides? Well you are not alone. According to a recent article discussing carnival ride safety in the Arizona Republic,

Arizona is one of the few states that does not require temporary amusement rides to be inspected or carry insurance, which leaves cities to decide how much or how little carnivals are regulated.

A bill pending before the Arizona legislature standardizes requirements that temporary carnival operators carry minimum liability insurance and subjects all carnival rides to periodic inspections.

At stake is whether Arizonans can count on the safety of the rides when regulations vary from city to city. Rides that continually are reassembled need to be scrutinized by inspectors who can head off accidents, industry standards recommend.

The bill has not yet passed the legislature but could serve a useful purpose by standardizing minimum safety and insurance requirements for carnival operators. What are your thoughts?

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Staff Writer

Civil Justice Remedies for Crime Victims

Staff Writer — Sun, 11 Feb 2007 18:02:08 GMT

We have heard plenty of stories about crime in Arizona. Unfortunately and sadly, crime occurs everyday on our streets, in our offices and in our homes. If you have victimized by criminal conduct, what happens next? Who will provide support and explain what you can expect from our criminal justice system? What resources are available? What remedies are available in the criminal and civil justice system? Fortunately, in Arizona you have some resources available. For example, the Department of Public Safety maintains a web site as a resource for crime victims. This site provides victim information and resources during times of need. The site also contains links to other resources such as the Never Again Foundation. This organization indicates its purpose as follows:

We are lawyers providing free legal representation and education for women, children, and senior victims of domestic violence, sexual assault or elder abuse in civil law suits directly against the abusers. We have won over $170 Million for our clients, and 100% of all collections are given to victims to help rebuild their lives.

Arizona also has constitutional protections to ensure that victims provide input into the criminal justice process once a defendant has been apprehended. Victims have the following rights once a defendant enters into the criminal justice system:

1. To be advised of all victim rights and how to assert them;
2. To information on the availability of crisis intervention, medical and emergency services, information on victim assistance programs and domestic violence resources;
3. To be advised of the date, time and location of the initial appearance or arraignment if a suspect is arrested or cited;
4. To be provided the police report number, if available, and if the case has been submitted to a prosecutor's office, information on how to contact that office;
5. To be notified if the prosecutor declines to file charges, and notice of what charges are filed;
6. To have your home address, and employer's name and address withheld from the defendant and his representatives;
7. To refuse an interview with the defendant and anyone working on the defendant's behalf;
8. To be present at any court proceeding at which the defendant has the right to be present;
9. To name an appropriate support person, who is not a witness, to accompany you to any interview, deposition or court proceeding;
10. To have the Court provide appropriate safeguards to minimize contact between you and the defendant;
11. To be heard at any proceeding concerning release of the accused person, a plea agreement, and the sentencing (with some limitations if the defendant is facing the death penalty);
12. To speak with the presentence investigator before the sentencing, to give a sentencing recommendation, and to read the presentence report when it is available to the defendant;
13. To have the court order restitution, and to receive that restitution promptly;
14. To leave work (if eligible) to attend scheduled legal proceedings (in accordance with A.R.S 13.4439).

In the criminal justice system, victims may be awarded restitution. Victims may also have other civil remedies available to them as well. Against the criminal defendant, the Never Again Foundation provides a laudible resource for victims seeking civil justice directly against the criminal defendant. Victims may also have civil remedies available to them against other parties. The National Crime Victim Bar Association provides a resource for crime victims seeking civil remedies from other parties who may bear some responsibility for allowing a criminal act to occur. This organization provides resources to victims who need expertise in both civil and criminal matters.

The NCVBA provides technical support to attorneys representing crime victims in civil actions, refers crime victims to lawyers in their local area, and works to increase general awareness about the availability
of civil remedies for victims of crime.

Hopefully, you will never need these resources; however, they are available to provide victims with some compassion and understanding during times of need.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Staff Writer

Arizona One of the Deadliest for Victims of Drinking and Driving

Staff Writer — Fri, 01 Dec 2006 09:37:03 GMT

Arizona is near the top of the nation for a topic which, like golf, would have us all feel better if the score were substantially lower. According to the East Valley Tribune, alcohol played a factor in almost half of all fatal automobile crashes last year. A report prepared by an organization known as

End Needless Death on Our Roadways, shows Arizona is 15th in alcohol-related fatal crashes, just behind South Carolina and Illinois.
"Arizona definitely does not like being listed on this," said Michael Hegarty, spokesman for the Arizona Governor's Office of Highway Safety, "but we are taking every measure to decrease our numbers."

These statistics are no doubt troubling in a state which recently allowed bars and nightclubs to remain open an extra hour until two o'clock in the morning. Also, these statistics should serve as a stark reminder to all of us to drive defensively, wear your seatbelt and do not take unnecessary risks; you never know if you will be the next victim of an impaired driver. According to Michael Hegarty,

"No state can be proud of being this high," he said, "especially since alcohol-related crashes are one of the more easily preventable ones."

Reducing these statistics should become a priority for all of us. Drivers should not take irresponsible risks by drinking to the point of impairment and driving. Get a designated driver or take a cab! Police should provide enforcement to catch those drivers who get behind the wheel and place themselves and the public at risk. Likewise, local bars and restaurants can and should play an important enforcement role by training staff to avoid overserving drunk patrons and offering a safe ride home if needed. Bars and restaurants are licensed by the State Liquor Board which allows them to earn a profit from the sale of alcohol. Based on the dangers of drinking and driving, Arizona law prevents these businesses from profiting by overserving alcohol to patrons. If a bar or restaurant overserves liquor to a patron, it should either offer a safe ride home or if rejected, call the police. Like any other businesses, a license to earn a profit requires that businesses earn that profit by acting responsibly.

If all else fails and a family becomes victimized based upon the behavior of an irresponsible drunk driver, organizations such as MADD Arizona provide victim assistance. Actually the MADD organization also provides prevention resources and support to the community in order to eliminate drunk driving altogether. According to the national MADD President,

"The real possibility of eliminating drunk driving in this country is a powerful, even audacious, idea. Yet the tools are now at hand. Using technology, tougher enforcement, stronger laws and grassroots mobilization, the goal of eliminating a primary public health threat that has plagued the United States is within our reach," said Glynn Birch, national president of MADD.

Let us make a commitment to prevent drunk driving as outlined by the MADD national president. Such a commitment must start at the grass roots level, one driver, one business and one law enforcement representative at a time. Making such a commitment will lead to a reduction in alcohol related fatal crashes and will drop Arizona from among the top fifteen states in this sad statistical category.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Staff Writer

Lawyer Advertising

Staff Writer — Sun, 19 Mar 2006 09:09:12 GMT

Do you select your attorney on the basis of which animal mascot the lawfirm included in its advertising slogan? Are you comfortable hiring lawyers who choose a flying animal or a four legged creature as a mascot? Do you make a decision to hire a lawyer on the basis of advertising? Fees? Experience? What criteria do you use to evaluate who to hire for your legal needs?

What resources do you rely upon to choose a lawyer? If you need legal help, do you know where to go? Some Arizona specific recourses include the Arizona State Bar Association, or the Maricopa County Lawyer referral service. Nationally, the American Bar Association contains some useful information about lawyer referral resources.

Once you do hire an attorney, the Arizona State Bar Association published a brochure containing information about your rights and responsibilities as a client. No matter if you choose a firm with an animal mascot, a firm with a glitzy Hollywood spokesman on television or a firm which relies almost exclusively on word of mouth for referrals, these rights and responsibilties may be of some assistance:

CLIENT RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES
Client Rights: When you hire a lawyer, you are entitled to one who:
Will represent you diligently and ethically.
Will be capable of handling your case. You are encouraged to ask about the lawyer's education, training and experience before hiring him or her. The lawyer will inform you periodically about the status of your case and give you copies, if you request, of legal documents prepared on your behalf.
Will charge you a reasonable fee and tell you in advance the basis for that fee. You are encouraged to ask questions about the proposed fee. You should request written confirmation of your fee agreement whether it is a contingent fee, based on a hourly rate, or some other method.
Will provide an estimate of the costs and legal fees. You should inquire as to the potential costs if your case is lost. Before paying a bill, you are entitled to a written statement which you are paying.
Will keep statements and information which you reveal in the course of your relationship confidential.
Will give you the right to make the ultimate decisions on the legitimate objectives to be pursued in your case, including deciding whether or not to settle your case.
Will show you courtesy and respect.
Will exercise independent professional judgment on your behalf, free from compromising influence.
Client Responsibilities: When you hire a lawyer, you have the responsibility:
To give the lawyer a truthful and candid recitation of the facts surrounding your case. A lawyer can only help a client when there has been full disclosure. You have the responsibility to promptly notify the lawyer of changed circumstances.
To give the lawyer prompt responses to reasonable and necessary requests.
To understand that the lawyer has many other clients and to realize that other clients are equally deserving of the lawyer's time and efforts.
To set appointments in advance rather than showing up at the office and expecting to be seen.
To treat the lawyer with courtesy and respect.
To communicate in a timely manner with the lawyer if you are unhappy regarding the representation and the reasons why.
To refrain from asking the lawyer to engage in behavior which is inappropriate, unethical, unprofessional, or illegal.
To be on time for all legal proceedings.
To pay the agreed upon lawyer's fee in a prompt manner. If unforeseen circumstances arise concerning payment, you should inform the lawyer of the reasons for nonpayment. If any billing entries are in question, you should give immediate notice to the lawyer.

Hopefully these resources may assist in your search for an attorney and provide information about your rights and responsibilities when you hire one. I am curious about what other resources you consider in the course of choosing an attorney? I look forward to hearing your responses.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Staff Writer

Look Where You Walk

Staff Writer — Tue, 14 Mar 2006 13:56:41 GMT

In late February, the United States Supreme Court held that a woman who tripped over her mail left on her porch rather than her mailbox can sue the United States Postal Service for personal injuries arising out of her fall. Today, I read an article in the Arizona Daily Star describing this lawsuit and immediately thought about the McDonalds case involving hot coffee spilled in the lap of an elderly lady. This comparison led me to think about another question which I'd like to ask: do you think that people file lawsuits more often today than we did twenty years ago? Let me know your thoughts.

By the way, I have some different thoughts about the McDonalds case. For those who may not recall, the McDonalds case involved an elderly woman who sued McDonalds because she suffered injuries after hot coffee spilled on her lap. I do not want to defend the position taken by either party in the McDonalds case or in any other case; that would not be fair. Instead, I trust our system of justice. I also trust juries and the appellate courts to make the right decisions about what is and is not frivolous. The jury in the McDonalds case heard all the evidence and made its decision based upon its evalutation of this evidence. While news accounts may lead me to think differently about the result, I do not think it fair to substitute my opinions for what the jury considered. The jury heard all evidence about past conduct, past warnings to McDonalds and the extent of injuries that the vicitm sustained and came back with its award. By the way, post trial actions led to a substantial reduction of the jury award. Indeed, rather than using the McDonalds case as evidence of the need for tort reform, I view the McDonalds case as validation of our system of justice and confirmation that it should not change. Now in Maricopa County, generally speaking, juries already view lawsuits with a conservative eye and considerable skepticism. Indeed, today in light of the McDonalds case, while a woman may be able to sue the United States Postal Service for injuries she sustained after falling over her mail, in my humble opinion, juries would not look too favorably on such a lawsuit believing instead that this woman must take personal responsibility for her actions. In some respects, because of the McDonalds case, jurors in Arizona already practice their own form of tort reform. The Association of Trial Lawyers of America has prepared a fact sheet about the McDonalds case. Click here if you are interested in reviewing more details about that interesting product liability case.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Staff Writer

Arizona Punitive Damages Legislation

Staff Writer — Wed, 15 Feb 2006 10:36:45 GMT

Each year various members of the Arizona legislature introduce bills concerning all aspects of "tort reform." This year is no different. I recently learned that Arizona State Representative Jennifer Burns introduced a bill to prevent Plaintiffs from recovering punitive damges but not to outlaw puntive damages awards in their entirety. Rather than outlawing punitive damages, Representative Burns' legislation would direct that all punitive damages awarded by a jury be placed in a state fund for the benefit of health education services.

Throughout the years I have observed our Arizona legislature attempt to cut back on the rights of victims to seek punitive damages arising out of intentional conduct by a wrongdoer. This is the first time I can recall the legislature seeking to enrich the State of Arizona anytime a jury awards punitive damages. While the concept of funding health related programs may be a good one, I am afraid that in practice, requiring that punitive damage awards be deposited with the State for the benefit of health programs presents a host of unintended consequences. For example, how would these changes affect the ability of parties to settle their lawsuit knowing that if a jury awards punitive damages, Plaintiffs will never see any of these monies? Does this mean that a Defendant would be discouraged from participating in meaningful settlement negotiations and would offer artificially low settlements? Why should the State mandate the use for punitive damages awards? What if Plaintiffs who have suffered harm have a desire to see the punitive damages award used for other socially responsible causes other than health related programs? Also, will the State have new incentives to avoid licensing and oversight responsibilities in times of fiscal shortfalls knowing that budget shortfalls in certain health-related program areas could be made up by punitive damage assessments?

Is this bill another attempt at unwarranted government interference in our jury system or is it a good start at fixing a problem with allegedly outrageous jury awards? I for one think that government should stay out of this decision making process and if anybody should benefit from a punitive damages award, it should be the victim of outrageous conduct justifying such an award and not our government. Lastly, punitive damages awards are usually lower than an initial jury award and usually take a long time to wind their way through our judicial process before a Plaintiff can recover anything. In reality, the need for punitive damages reform in my opinion is exaggerated. What do you think? Click here to see the House Bill 2862, the proposed punitive damages reform bill.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Staff Writer

Enron and Corporate America

Staff Writer — Wed, 08 Feb 2006 13:01:44 GMT

The trial of Enron executives Kenneth Lay and Jeffrey Skilling began this last week in a Houston, Texas courtroom. This corporate scandal and the beginning of the trial of its former executives has reinforced my opinion about why jurors rathern than government or corporate America should have the final say about what corporations should and should not do, and when corporations should be held accountable. Without the protection of our jury system, the quest for profit has the potential to place profits over safety. Please do not misunderstand me. I do not suggest that the quest for profit is a bad thing. Quite the contrary, I believe that coprorations need to maximize shareholder value and earn a return on investment capital. However, looking at the Enron scandal, I simply believe that when a corporation deliberately misleads or places a faulty product into the stream of commerce and people suffer harm, the corporation should be held accountable. With our jury system intact, corporations have more incentive to place safer products into the stream of commerce.

I further believe that government should not have the power to establish a rule to tell all victims of corporate negligence or Enron-type scandals how much damages are too much. Personal injuries vary by person. Corporate scandals vary by corporation. Corporations acting negligently should be treated differently than corporations which deliberately bilk consumers out of hard earned money. Therefore maximum damage awards may create good soundbites for the news media, but they are a bad practice. Caps on damages can do more to encourage corporate misbehavior if a corporation believes that it can earn more than the maximum penalty imposed upon it. The risk of an unlimited punitive damages award can be an amazing tool to discourage corporate malfeasance. Unfortunately, in Enron's home state of Texas, such a risk is non-existent. Texas law places a cap on punitive damages. While the Enron trial continues and you continue to see reports about one of the largest examples of corporate misconduct in America, keep in mind that this case involves such far-reaching issues as corporate governance, punitive damages, and tort reform and not just a trial involving Kenneth Lay and Jeffrey Skilling. Click here for more information about this high profile trial with implications on injury and accident law.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Staff Writer

How Much Time Do I Have to File a Lawsuit?

Staff Writer — Thu, 02 Feb 2006 16:04:06 GMT

If you have been injured in an accident and somebody else bears responsibility, one question likely to arise is whether you must file suit within a specified period of time. In Arizona, you must file suit within a specific time or you will forever lose your rights to sue. This time period can be as little as 180 days from the date you suffered harm (or should have known), as long as two years or longer from the date of loss. Typically, you will have two years from which to file suit for many cases.

If you suffer a loss due and a state or local entity bears responsibility, these time limits are more complex. In order to preserve your claim in addition to filing suit within a certain period of time, you must also first file a Notice of Claim within 180 days from the date of the loss. If you do not file a Notice of Claim as a pre-requisite to filing a lawsuit, you will forever lose your right to claim compensation from any state or local governments.

These deadlines from which to file suit may be different for different people and for different claims. For example, alleging a violation of a specific state statute typcially requires that you file suit within one year of the loss. Also, all of these time limits ordinarily do not begin for minor children until they turn age eighteen. This means that a two year old child who suffered injury due to the negligence of another could conceivably wait until age eighteen before filing suit. Moreover, during the time of a mental infirmity, the limitations period is placed on hold for those persons lacking in mental capacity.

These time limits may be different if you either did not know or should not have known of your injuries within the applicable limitations period. In order to avoid creating a defense in litigation, you should try to prevent defendants from arguing that you either knew or should have known of your injuries within the applicable time period and nevertheless did not file a timely lawsuit.

If you are not confused enough by now, keep this in mind: the best rule of thumb is to file suit well within any limitations period in order to preserve all of your claims, preserve evidence and minimize memory and perception problems. Arizona Revised Statutes provide guidance for most limitations periods. I have included a link to the general limitations period provided by Arizona law. However, your attorney can best assist you in making decisions about all applicable limitations period and what to do to best preserve your claims.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Staff Writer