Monthly Archives: June 2018

In Arizona (and throughout the country), even once you have secured a court judgment in your favor, the task is not yet complete — you must still collect the damages which you are owed by the defendant.  The type of case is irrelevant to collection.  Whether you were involved in a car accident lawsuit, or some other lawsuit, will have no effect on the procedure that you are required to follow. Unfortunately, defendants can be challenging.  Though in most cases the defendant will honor their responsibilities and — having lost the case — will pay the damages that you (the plaintiff) are owed, in some cases, the defendant will maneuver around the judgment and create roadblocks to collection. The defendant may ignore your request for damages, costs, and legal fees.  Alternatively, they may outright refuse to pay the judgment.  As a general rule, these are a clever application of stalling tactics.  If the defendant can stall for a long enough period of time, then they may be able to hide or otherwise relocate their assets so that you — as the judgment creditor — cannot seize them. What can you do to ensure that you collect your damages in full, after a judgment has been entered in your favor? Let’s take a look at some of your options. What is a Court Judgment? A court judgment is essentially a formal document that gives you, the successful plaintiff, the unrestricted right to seize the assets of the defendant in order to […]

Our Phoenix Accident Attorneys Explain the Duty to Mitigate In Arizona, and throughout the country, injured plaintiffs are entitled to recover damages for damages they incur due to the negligent, reckless, or intentional acts of others — whether they are injured in a car accident or a slip-and-fall accident, or some other accident scenario.  This right to recovery is not absolute, however.  Injured plaintiffs must act in accordance with their various duties and responsibilities under the law, which includes the duty to mitigate their losses. What is the Duty to Mitigate? Defendants cannot be held liable for losses that they do not actually cause.  This “causation” requirement is fundamentally linked to the duty to mitigate. How so? The duty to mitigate requires that the injured plaintiff exert “reasonable efforts” to reduce their total losses — failure to do so will result in a proportional decrease in one’s recoverable damages.  Losses can be quite varied, and as such, mitigation must cover all the losses that the plaintiff intends to claim.  This can all be somewhat confusing to understand, so let’s use a quick example to clarify. Suppose that you are injured in a motor vehicle accident by the defendant, who was excessively speeding at the time, thus causing the accident.  You sustained significant neck and back injuries during the accident, and as a result, you can no longer work.  Now, suppose that you seek adequate medical diagnostics and treatment as soon as possible.  Your doctor asks that you sign up for […]

Waivers of liability are quite common, particularly in the context of recreational activities — this ubiquity means that laypeople are generally familiar with the concept of a “liability waiver” and what it entails.  Simply put, a liability waiver shields the defendant from civil liability for serious injuries and damages that they cause due to their own negligence. Still, few laypeople understand that liability waivers are not always applicable to a given situation, or that enforceability will depend on a number of different factors that could be evaluated in their favor. Freedom to Contract Arizona law recognizes the freedom to contract, but this freedom is not unlimited.  Though two or more parties are reasonably entitled to contract around their potential liabilities, the law will not necessarily accept all such agreements as enforceable.  In Arizona, for example, the state generally disfavors agreements (i.e., liability waivers) designed to release liability.  As such, any and all liability waivers are strictly construed against the defendant seeking to enforce the waiver. Determining Whether the Liability Waiver is Enforceable Enforceability of a liability waiver depends on the circumstances.  Courts will analyze the facts of the case (surrounding the liability waiver) and will consider those facts in the context of the following factors. Ambiguity in the Waiver Agreement Liability waivers must be sufficiently clear and unambiguous such that they function as a fully adequate notice of the inherent dangers associated with the covered activity.  The dangers must be reasonably communicated to the participants.  If there is ambiguity in […]

Motor vehicle accidents are often caused — in whole or in part — by the presence of unexpected road debris and various other roadway hazards.  In the state of Arizona, for example, the Department of Transportation estimates that road debris alone is responsible for 1,000 crashes on an annual basis.  Accidents from dangerous road conditions can be particularly disastrous, as drivers may not be prepared for If you have been involved in an accident that was caused by road debris or some other roadway hazard, then you may be entitled to damages, as it the existence of the dangerous condition may be indicative of another’s negligence.  You’ll therefore want to get in touch with a Phoenix injury lawyer as soon as possible for an evaluation of your car accident claims and how best to proceed with litigation. Though the existence of a roadway hazard may not always be the fault of another party, there are many cases in which the negligence of the defendant — typically the possessor of a particular roadway (i.e., the government, or some private entity) — has contributed to the hazard at-issue.  If the defendant fails to correct the hazard or fails to warn motorists of the existence of the hazard so that it can be avoided, then liability may attach under prevailing Arizona law. Roadways Must Be Maintained in a Reasonably Safe Condition Claims arising out of injuries sustained due to road debris (or other roadway hazards) generally come under the umbrella of premises liability.  […]