–Injury Lawyers – Page 7

In Arizona, if you’ve been injured in an accident due to the fault of another person or entity, then you may have the right to recover a range of damages to cover your losses — generally speaking, this includes lost wages.

When bringing a lawsuit against the defendant, it’s important to remember that damages may vary substantially from plaintiff-to-plaintiff.  Every case is different.  In fact, it is a fundamental principle of law that the defendant be forced to “accept the victim” as “they found them.”  Stated another way, compensatory damages are not capped based on the type of accident that occurred.  If you have significant wage loss damages, you will not be prevented from recovering such damages simply because they seem excessive in comparison to the damages suffered by the average person.

Wage loss recovery is actually rather straightforward to understand.  Let’s explore the basics to get a clearer picture of how it works.

Wage Loss at a Glance

Wage loss damages account for actual losses suffered due to an inability to work (following an injury).  Wage loss damages are somewhat different from lost earning capacity.  For example, if your injury has not resulted in time off from work but has reduced the likelihood that you will be promoted in the future, then you’ll want to claim loss of future earning capacity damages — not wage loss damages.

Wage loss damages must generally be “certain” — they can be estimated, but there must be evidence that reasonably supports the numbers.  This is not typically an issue for past wage loss (where the injured plaintiff should have pay stubs and other evidence of the losses) but is more often an issue for future wage loss.

Damages for Past Wage Loss

Past wage loss refers to those damages directly suffered as a result of having to take time off of work.  For example, if you were forced to take two months off of work due to the injury inflicted by the defendant, then you could claim damages for the amount you were not paid during such time.

Defendants have a difficult time undermining past wage loss claims, but they may attempt to minimize their liabilities by arguing that you did not “have” to take so much time off of work, and that your failure to return to work sooner was unreasonable and constituted a failure to mitigate damages.

Damages for Future Wage Loss

Future wage loss refers to damages that you have not yet suffered at the time of litigation, and naturally involves a higher level of uncertainty.

Suppose that you are injured in a motor vehicle accident, and the injuries are so severe that you have been forced to take an indefinite leave of absence from work (until you fully recover).  If you bring a lawsuit against the defendant during this period of “unemployment,” then you will not only have past wage loss damages for the period of time after the accident and up to the litigation.  but you will also have a claim of future wage loss damages for the indefinite period of time after litigation.

Generally speaking, successful claims involving future wage loss damages must be supported by expert testimony, such as that of the treating medical professionals, and industry professionals in your field (who will discuss how your injuries necessarily prevent you from returning to work).

Contact an Experienced Phoenix Personal Injury Lawyer for Additional Guidance

If you have suffered an injury in an accident that was caused due to the negligent or wrongful acts of another, Arizona law may entitle you to recover significant damages as compensation for your losses.  Generally speaking, in cases involving severe injury — assuming that you were employed at the time of the accident — you will have wage loss damages to claim as well, due to having to take leave from work in order to physically and mentally recover from your various injuries.

Here at Hirsch & Lyon, our attorneys have more than 65 years of combined experience, and have represented thousands of clients in a range of injury disputes, helping them to recover the full amount of damages they are owed, which may include wage loss (among other damages).  We are committed to personalized advocacy and believe that our approach leads to significantly better results in litigation.  Clients can also take advantage of our discounted contingency fee — despite the fact that we only get paid if you succeed, our fee is lower than that of competitors.

Call (602) 535-1900 to schedule a free consultation with an experienced Phoenix personal injury lawyer today.

Motor vehicle accidents (like many other accident scenarios) are frequently decided on the basis of evidentiary issues.  The value of effectively navigating evidentiary conflicts cannot be understated — generally speaking, skilled litigators understand the value of favorably resolving evidentiary conflicts.  Doing so will almost certainly pay dividends further downstream in the litigation process.

Perhaps the most commonly encountered evidentiary issue is that of hearsay evidence admission.  In Arizona, the success of your motor vehicle accident and car accident claims can turn on the application of the hearsay evidence rule, so it’s worth considering the rule and its fundamental limitations.

Let’s take a look.

Arizona Law Prohibits the Admission of Hearsay Evidence

According to the Arizona Rules of Evidence section 801, hearsay evidence is defined as a statement that:

1. the declarant makes outside of the current trial or hearing, and
2. is offered into evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement.

If the declarant testifies about a prior statement and is subject to cross-examination, or if a statement is offered into evidence against an opposing party, then — assuming that certain additional requirements are met (see section 801(d)(1) and (d)(2)), the statement will not be considered “hearsay” despite having been made out-of-court.

Sifting through this legalese can be rather difficult.  Simply put, a hearsay statement is any out-of-court statement that is being offered to prove the content of the statement itself.

For example, suppose that the defendant is attempting to minimize their liability by claiming that another defendant was involved and contributed to your injuries (but drove away).  They introduce the eyewitness, out-of-court testimony of a bystander, which includes a statement that they saw a third car driving away from the scene after the collision.

Now, given the nature of the testimony — it is an out-of-court statement, and is intended to prove the truth of its content, which is that a third car was involved in the accident but drove away — it would likely constitute a hearsay statement, and would not be allowed into evidence.

The hearsay evidence rule may seem confusing to the layperson, but there are good reasons as to why the rule exists in the first place.  Generally speaking, the hearsay rule is intended to prevent untrustworthy statements from being introduced into evidence.  Out-of-court statements have not been properly cross-examined, after all.  If every hearsay statement were allowed, then there would be far too many inconsistencies in the evidentiary record, and it would create stumbling blocks for the resolution of the case.

Exceptions to the Hearsay Rule

In Arizona, there are a number of exceptions to the hearsay rule.

Even if the statement is deemed hearsay, it may be introduced if it qualifies as: 1) an excited utterance made about an unexpected or otherwise startling event, such as a car accident; 2) an immediate impression of an event, after or while the declarant perceived it; 3) a public record; 4) a statement made for the purpose of a medical diagnosis or medical treatment; and more.

Hearsay exceptions are numerous, and in many cases — with skilled argumentation — they can be used to introduce otherwise prohibited evidence.

Consult With an Experienced Phoenix Injury Lawyer for Further Guidance

Whether the admission of hearsay evidence will have a positive effect on likelihood of success at trial depends on the particular circumstances of the case — there are no absolute answers.  If the hearsay evidence is favorable to your arguments, then your attorney will argue that certain exceptions apply.  If the hearsay evidence is unfavorable to your arguments, then your attorney will argue the opposite.

Litigators who understand how to maneuver around evidentiary issues — such as hearsay evidence admission — can have an enormous effect on the success of your injury lawsuit.  As such, it’s important that you select an attorney who has a track record of success in handling evidentiary conflicts.

Here at Hirsch & Lyon, our attorneys have decades of experience representing injured clients in motor vehicle accident disputes in Arizona.  We are committed to client-oriented legal representation, and prioritize the interests of our clients in a number of ways that give us a significant competitive advantage.

Call (602) 535-1900 to speak with an experienced Phoenix injury lawyer today.  Initial consultation is free and confidential.

In Arizona, as in other states, workplace injuries (and other injuries sustained while performing one’s workplace duties, even off-site) can lead to quite a bit of confusion.  Many workers may not realize that they not only have the right to receive workers’ compensation benefits, but that they may also have a legitimate right of action against one or more defendants.

If you were delivering pizzas, for example, and you were subsequently injured in a serious car accident, then you would not only be entitled to workers’ compensation benefits, but you may also have other claims worth pursuing.

Workplace injuries can be particularly challenging from both an emotional and financial perspective.  Still, if you’ve suffered serious injuries, it’s critical that you consult with an attorney who can evaluate the situation and determine whether you have actionable claims — workers’ compensation benefits alone may be insufficient to account for your losses.

Arizona “No Fault” Workers’ Compensation

Workers’ compensation in the state of Arizona is mandatory — employers are required to pay for workers’ compensation insurance that covers their employees.  As such, if you are an employee and you are injured in a job-related incident (on-site or off-site), then you are almost certainly entitled to receive workers’ compensation benefits.

Importantly, Arizona workers’ compensation is a “no-fault” system.  In no-fault systems, it is irrelevant whether you contributed to your own injuries (so long as you did not intentionally cause your own injuries).  Further, it is not necessary to prove that the employer acted negligently or wrongfully.  Benefits will be paid out, regardless.

Workers’ compensation benefits cover a limited subset of damages: wage loss, medical expenses, and job retraining.  They do not cover pain and suffering, emotional distress, or loss of quality of life.  This can lead to a substantial damages gap, where your actual losses outstrip the compensation.

One way to ensure that your actual losses are accounted for is to bring an action against liable defendants.  This can be quite challenging, however, as workers’ compensation serves as an exclusive remedy and precludes the employee from bringing a lawsuit against their employer on the basis of negligence.

Intentional/Willful Misconduct

Though workers’ compensation will generally preclude a lawsuit against the employer, in certain circumstances — where the employer engaged in intentional or willful misconduct — you may be entitled to bring an action.  For example, suppose that you are injured in a truck accident while on-the-job.  Your employer is upset with you, and in their anger, they cut the brakes on your vehicle, leading to an accident.  Given the willful nature of such misconduct, you would have the right to sue your employer and recover comprehensive damages.

Suing a Third Party for Damages

In many workplace injury scenarios, even if the employer was not actually at-fault for your injuries, there may be third-parties whose negligence have substantially contributed to your injuries.  In Arizona, you have the right to sue a liable third-party for damages, even if you will be receiving workers’ compensation benefits.

For example, suppose that the tires on the company vehicle explode, causing an accident in which you are severely injured.  Further investigation reveals that the tires were defective.  You may be entitled to sue the tire manufacturer pursuant to a product defect claim.

Get Connected to an Experienced Phoenix Injury Lawyer for a Free Consultation

If you are involved in a car accident or truck accident while on-the-job — whether you’re on-site or simply performing the duties of your position off-site — then you are very likely entitled to receive “no fault” workers’ compensation benefits to help compensate you for your various injuries.  Unfortunately, workers’ compensation benefits are not particularly comprehensive.  As such, you may find that the benefits are not sufficient to cover your losses.  There are ways in which to secure more comprehensive damages, but those will require the assistance of an attorney who has experience navigating the complexities of work injury litigation.

Here at Hirsch & Lyon, our attorneys have decades of combined experience litigating motor vehicle accident claims on behalf of our injured clients.  We have handled straightforward injury cases, as well as more complicated cases involving high-conflict issues relating to workers’ compensation benefits and potential third-party liability.

Call (602) 535-1900 or submit an online claim evaluation form to schedule a free consultation with an experienced Phoenix injury lawyer here at Hirsch & Lyon.

Motor vehicle accidents — like many other accident scenarios — often involve multiple defendants.  Bringing an action against a single defendant is quite a bit different than suing multiple defendants, even if the case may seem uncomplicated upon first impression.

For example, if you have been injured in a motor vehicle accident where two speeding cars collided with yours (on the highway), then you would have to sue and recover from each defendant separately.  Defendants are well aware of the fact that this burden is placed on the injured plaintiff, and may attempt to minimize their liabilities by shifting the greater portion of the blame to the other defendants in the case.

Arizona Implements Several Liability, Not Joint Liability

In Arizona, historically, the state implemented “joint and several” liability.  Joint and several liability gave the injured plaintiff a great deal of power — the plaintiff could sue any one of the defendants who contributed to their injuries, and in turn, recover the full amount of their damages from that one defendant, even if the defendant was only minimally liable for the injuries at-issue.

For example, in a case with $1 million in damages, a defendant who was only 10 percent at-fault could be held liable for the entire $1 million!

Unfortunately, lawmakers came to believe that the system was unfair to defendants, and abolished “joint and several” liability, replacing it with a system of pure several liability.  If you are injured in an accident in Arizona, you will therefore be subject to the state’s implementation of several liability.

How does several liability work?

It’s quite simple, actually.  Several liability holds each defendant liable for damages that are proportional to their actual fault.  The courts enter separate judgment against each defendant for the amount owed.

For example, in a case with $1 million in damages, a defendant who was 10 percent at-fault could only be held liable for their proportional amount in damages: $100,000.

Several liability puts a much greater burden on the injured plaintiff, as they can no longer sue and recover their damages (in full) from a single defendant.  The plaintiff must identify all potentially liable defendants and file claims against them, accounting for their proportional contribution of fault.

Contact an Experienced Phoenix Injury Lawyer for a Free Consultation

If you have suffered injuries in a motor vehicle accident that was caused by the negligent or wrongful acts of another, then Arizona law may give you a right to recover damages as compensation.

Even if there is strong evidence pointing to the liability of the defendant, your lawsuit may be complicated by other issues, such as the existence of multiple fault-contributing defendants.  If multiple defendants are found to be at-fault for your injuries — which is often the case in motor vehicle accident scenarios — then you will have to properly evaluate their separate liabilities and doggedly pursue your individual claims against each defendant.

Here at Hirsch & Lyon, we understand that serious motor vehicle accidents (and the legal consequences) can be overwhelming to plaintiffs who are unfamiliar with the complexities of the litigation process.  As such, we strive to provide client-oriented legal representation — to that end, we consistently communicate case developments, make ourselves available 24/7 to answer any questions or concerns, and charge discounted fees so that our clients can keep more of what they recover.

Call (602) 535-1900 today to schedule a free and confidential consultation with an experienced Phoenix injury lawyer here at Hirsch & Lyon.  We look forward to assisting you.

In Arizona, as in other states, those who have lost a loved one to an accident (that was caused by another’s negligent, reckless, or intentional acts) may be entitled to recover damages pursuant to a wrongful death claim.

How Do Wrongful Death Claims Work?

Wrongful death claims give a right of action to certain surviving family members of the deceased, allowing those surviving family members to recover damages to compensate them for the various losses they suffered as a result of the death at-issue.  Importantly, wrongful death claims are not intended to compensate the surviving family members for the suffering of the deceased.  Instead, they are intended to compensate the surviving family members for their own damages.

These damages may include:

• Out-of-pocket medical expenses paid by the surviving family member
• Funeral expenses paid by the surviving family member
• Loss of companionship
• Loss of consortium
• Loss of domestic services
• Loss of love and affection
• Loss of financial support
• Mental distress
• And more

Suppose, for example, that a close relative — perhaps your father — was involved in a motor vehicle accident.  The accident did not immediately result in your father’s death.  He is rushed to the hospital.  After a few days in intensive care and a difficult struggle for survival, your father dies.

In the above example, you cannot recover (in a wrongful death action) damages for your father’s pain and suffering, or for their medical expenses or wage loss.  You can only recover damages for your own losses.  If your father was providing you monthly financial support, for example, then you could recover those damages as part of your wrongful death claim.

When determining whether you are entitled to recover wrongful death damages, there are a number of factors that have to be considered: 1) you may only recover if the accident was actually caused by the negligent or wrongful acts of the defendant (if the accident does not actually implicate the liability of a third-party, then you cannot recover), and 2) you must be a qualified, surviving family member.

Who is Entitled to Recover for Wrongful Death?

According to section 12-612 of the Arizona Revised Statutes, an action for wrongful death may be brought by any of the following survivors, related to the deceased:

• Spouse
• Child
• Parent (or guardian)
• Personal representative

It’s important to note that Arizona law does not give siblings, and other surviving family members, the right to recover for wrongful death.  If multiple surviving family members are bringing a wrongful death action against the defendant(s), then they will have the right to recover in proportion to their damages.

Speak With an Experienced Phoenix Wrongful Death Attorney for Assistance

If you have lost a family member in a motor vehicle accident that was caused by the negligence or wrongful acts of another, then Arizona law may give you the right to recover in a wrongful death action.  Wrongful death claims can be quite complicated, however — you must not only establish that the defendant caused the death of your loved one (by acting in a negligent or wrongful manner), but you must also demonstrate that you qualify to receive wrongful death damages under the law.  It’s therefore critical that you get in touch with an attorney who has a long track record of success in handling such claims.

Here at Hirsch & Lyon, our attorneys boast several decades of combined experience representing injured clients in a range of accident claims.  We believe that by dedicating ourselves to motor vehicle accident claims, we are able to provide more comprehensive and effective legal representation to our clients.

Like most other personal injury and wrongful death firms, we work on contingency — we are only paid if we win your case — but we charge a discounted contingency fee, ensuring that our clients can keep more of what they rightfully recover in litigation.

Call (602) 535-1900 today to schedule a free consultation with an experienced Phoenix wrongful death attorney here at Hirsch & Lyon.

Quite often, injury victims are not in perfect health.  One injury victim may be suffering from a serious heart condition that predisposes them to blood clots, heart attacks, and other heart-related injuries during times of great stress.  Another injury victim may be suffering from a weak back that is prone to fracture injuries.

Injury victims who are in particularly poor health, or who are uniquely fragile — for example, who suffer from muscle weakness or a lack of bone density — may feel that they are not in a strong position to sue the defendant who caused their injuries.  These victims mistakenly believe that their condition precludes a lawsuit.  After all, should the defendant be held liable for injuries that are unexpected?

Simply put: yes.  In Arizona, and in other jurisdictions throughout the country, defendants may be held liable for any and all injuries that were caused by their negligent, reckless, or intentional actions.  It does not matter that the defendant was “unlucky” that their actions affected a fragile victim — the defendant must bear the burden.

All of this is great news for injury victims, of course, and we encourage you to speak with a qualified attorney for further guidance.  For now, let’s unpack some of this terminology so that we can clarify any remaining confusion.

Defendants Must Accept the Cost Burden of Their Actions

No matter what jurisdiction you’re in — Arizona or California or New Mexico or Texas — the “thin skull” rule, otherwise known as the “eggshell skull” rule, will apply to your injury lawsuit.  This rule is fundamental to personal injury litigation, and has far-reaching implications.

So, what is the “thin skull” rule?

Essentially, the “thin skull” rule requires that the defendant be held liable for all the damages that they cause, no matter the condition of the defendant.  Pursuant to the “thin skull” rule, a defendant may be held liable for damages that are unforeseen, unlikely, and entirely unexpected.

For example, suppose that someone sucker punches you on the street.  You have a degenerative spinal condition that renders your spine particularly vulnerable to shock impact damage.  When you fall down and hit the ground, you become paralyzed from the waist down.  Even though a “normal” person may not have been paralyzed under the same circumstances, it is irrelevant — you would be able to sue and recover damages that include all the losses you sustained (and will sustain) due to your paralysis.

The “thin skull” rule shifts the cost burden of an injury over to the defendant who caused the injury.  If the rule were not in effect, then the disproportionate consequences of the defendant’s behavior would have to be shouldered by the plaintiff, who was simply a victim, not the aggressor.  Application of the rule has significant (positive) implications, which is why it is uniformly applied across jurisdictions in the United States.

How the “Thin Skull” Rule Works in Real-World Situations

In real-world situations, the “thin skull” rule allows fragile plaintiffs to sue and recover substantial damages that may seem disproportionate given the defendant’s actions.  Imagine, for example, that you are involved in a car accident with the defendant.  You have generalized anxiety, and in the wake of the accident, you experienced episodes that have caused substantial emotional trauma.  Though the fact that you are experiencing continued psychological trauma months, or even years, after the accident may seem “disproportionate,” so long as you can present evidence of this trauma (i.e., medical/therapy records) then you would be entitled to recover damages.

Speak With an Experienced Phoenix Car Accident Attorney for Further Guidance

If you’ve been injured in an Arizona car accident due to the negligence, recklessness, or intentional acts of another person or entity, then you should consult with a qualified attorney who can help you navigate the challenges of litigation and obtain compensation on your behalf — even if you suffer from a physical condition that makes you more “fragile” than the average person, or that otherwise predisposed you to injury.

The prospect of personal injury litigation can already feel overwhelming to an injured plaintiff who has little experience in the legal arena, and this feeling can be exacerbated if they suffer from a condition that predisposed them to the injury.  There’s no need for concern, however.  It’s important to remember that Arizona law allows injured plaintiffs — even those who are uniquely fragile — to sue the defendant and recover damages pursuant to a legitimate injury claim.

Here at Hirsch & Lyon, our attorneys have spent decades representing the interests of injured plaintiffs in a range of disputes, including those where our client was a “thin skull” plaintiff and therefore suffered a unique fragility that predisposed them to injury.

Call (602) 535-1900 to schedule a free consultation with an experienced Phoenix car accident attorney today.  We look forward to assisting you.

If you are suing the defendant for having caused your injuries — perhaps in a car accident, for example — then you may be concerned about having all your medical records exposed to the defendant and their attorneys.

You may be uncomfortable with the prospect of having private information revealed to the public at-large (if the medical records are introduced into evidence, then the details will be made available to the public).  Further, the greater access that the defendant has to your lifetime medical records, the more likely it is that they will be able to weave together a damning narrative that undermines your arguments.

Suppose that you are injured in a car accident that was caused by the defendant, who was operating their vehicle in a distracted manner.  You injure your leg as a result of the accident.  During the discovery process, the defendant requests your lifetime medical records.  That request is likely overbroad, however, and you need not honor it.

If the defendant were to have access to your lifetime medical records, they might notice that you have been in-and-out of hospitals many times throughout your life, and they might argue that your leg injury is exaggerated, given your “demonstrated tendency” to malinger.

By preventing the disclosure of irrelevant medical records, you therefore shield your lawsuit from damaging narratives.

Fortunately, the basic rules of evidence in Arizona protect injured plaintiffs against unnecessary and over-broad investigations into their lifetime medical records.  It’s important that you secure the assistance of a qualified Phoenix car accident attorney, as they will help you navigate the challenges of litigation without having to provide access to irrelevant evidence that could hurt your case.

Evidence Rules at a Glance

The rules of evidence in Arizona largely mirror those enshrined in the various federal rules of evidence.  For now, we’ll take a brief look at two of the most important evidentiary considerations that prevent excessive medical record disclosures.

Evidence Must Be Relevant

Rule 402 of the Arizona Rules of Evidence requires that admissible evidence be relevant (irrelevant evidence will not be admissible), while Rule 401 describes the test for relevant evidence.  Pursuant to Rule 401, evidence will be deemed relevant only if it has a tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence at-issue, and if it is of consequence in determining the action.

What does this mean in the context of medical records?

Suppose that the defendant requests your medical records relating to a hand injury you sustained years ago, even though in your current lawsuit you are only arguing that you have suffered leg injuries.  You could likely prevent the disclosure of the hand injury-related medical records because it is of no consequence in determining the action.

Evidence Must Not Be Prejudicial, Confusing, or a Waste of Time

Rule 403 of the Arizona Rules of Evidence requires that the court exclude evidence — even if it is relevant — if its probative value is outweighed by the danger of causing unfair prejudice towards the plaintiff (for example, an abortion might prejudice the jury against the plaintiff in a conservative county).  Similarly, the probative value must be outweighed by the danger of causing confusion, a waste of time, or the jury to be misled.

Schedule a Free Consultation With an Experienced Phoenix Car Accident Attorney

Here at Hirsch & Lyon, our attorneys have accumulated over six decades of combined experience representing a range of clients in personal injury litigation — including car accident cases — throughout the state of Arizona.

Unlike many other injury firms, we are deeply invested in the well-being and success of each of our clients.  As such, we make ourselves available 24/7 to answer any questions or concerns that a client may have regarding their case, and we work closely with our clients (from the start of litigation) to ensure that our overall goals are aligned at every step of the process.  We are even available to make hospital and house appointments, if doing so will be more convenient for you.

Have you been injured in a car accident, or in any other accident that was caused by the fault of another?  Call (602) 535-1900 to setup an appointment with an experienced Phoenix car accident attorney here at Hirsch & Lyon.  We take a lower contingency fee than competitor firms, so when you obtain compensation for your injuries, you’ll be able to keep more of it for yourself.

If you’ve suffered an injury in an accident that was caused by someone who has a cognitive disability, or who is otherwise mentally incompetent, then you’re likely wondering about the likelihood of recovery should you choose to pursue litigation against the defendant.  In the state of Arizona, much like the rest of the country, personal injury lawsuits brought on the basis of negligence (i.e., that the defendant acted in such a way that they violated the standard of care for the situation) are rather complicated when it comes to those who have cognitive impairments.

Negligence Liability is Based on the Objective, Reasonable Person Standard

Negligence claims — in the injury context — are fundamentally based on the concept of a standard of care.  Simply put, the difference between a mistake and negligence (for which the defendant will be held liable) turns on the standard of care.  If the defendant acts in such a way that it violates the standard of care, they will be found negligent, and may therefore be sued by the injury victim for damages.  If the defendant makes a mistake, but their actions do not violate the standard of care, then you cannot hold them liable for your injuries.

The standard of care in any given situation is meant to be based on an objective, “reasonable person” standard.  Essentially, the court will determine how a reasonably prudent person would have acted in the same situation as the defendant.  If the defendant’s actions fall out-of-step with this expectation, then they have violated the standard of care.

For example, in a car accident, if the defendant ran a red light at high-speed, the court is likely to find that the defendant violated the standard of care.  A reasonably prudent person under such circumstances would not have run the red light (absent some other life-threatening circumstance).

Historically, in Arizona and throughout the country, mental illnesses and cognitive disabilities have not changed this objective standard of care.  This is important.  In many other situations, the defendant’s condition may influence their liability under a theory of negligence.  For example, if a defendant is deaf, then they may be held to a different standard of care when operating a vehicle.

For the most part, then, if you are involved in an accident due to the negligence of a person who is suffering from a cognitive disability or a mental illness, they cannot use their mental condition to avoid liability.  Assuming that you can show that they violated the standard of care and that you suffered injuries as a result, you can recover damages.

Defendants May Only Escape Liability When Mental Illness Absolves All Responsibility

It is worth noting that Arizona carves out a limited exception where a defendant can avoid liability if their mental illness/cognitive disability is so severe that it absolves them of all responsibility for their actions — this is extremely rare, however.  For example, even a schizophrenic might be capable of modulating their speed effectively in a pedestrian-dense area.  On the other hand, someone with a cognitive defect so severe that they are incapable of processing the presence of pedestrians, or that they must avoid a collision in the first place, could argue that they should not be held liable.

Speak With an Experienced Phoenix Car Accident Attorney for Further Guidance

If you have been injured in a car accident, or some other accident that came about as a result of the defendant’s negligent actions, then you may have the right to recover damages in accordance with Arizona law.  Litigating a claim against the defendant can appear misleadingly simple, at first, but can become rather complicated as further investigation of the facts reveal a multi-layered case.

Here at Hirsch & Lyon, our attorneys are no stranger to complex personal injury litigation.  We have decades of experience advocating on behalf of injury victims, assisting them throughout the litigation process, and helping to secure substantial damages to compensate them for their injuries.  We are a client-oriented firm, and as such, we are available at all times to discuss their questions and concerns.  We work on a lower contingency fee than most other firms, so you only pay if you successfully obtain compensation, and most importantly, you get to keep more of it!

Call (602) 535-1900 today to schedule a free consultation with an experienced Phoenix car accident attorney here at Hirsch & Lyon.  In these initial stages of the attorney-client relationship, we will begin with a careful evaluation of your claims and will help you take the next steps towards recovery.

If you’ve been injured due to another person’s negligent, reckless, or intentional actions — for example, in a car accident with a defendant-driver who was speeding and driving in a distracted manner at the time of the accident — then Arizona law may entitle you to sue and potentially recover damages as compensation.  Though lawsuits are an excellent way to ensure that defendants are held accountable for their damaging actions, there are many limitations that people are unaware of (chiefly, the issue of privacy).

Simply put, litigating a claim opens up the details to members of the public.  Upon first impression, this may not seem like a “big deal.”  After all, you might find it strange that someone in your community is scouring public databases for court records and will thereafter reveal your personal issues to the world at-large.  In reality, however, many disclosures in litigation are made known to the public through various media outlets.

For example, if you are suing a local transportation company for an accident that occurred on the highway, then the local news outlets may report on litigation as it proceeds.

Fortunately, there are ways to circumvent the privacy concerns associated with litigation, so if your privacy is particularly important to you, then you may still make an attempt to negotiate and resolve your dispute with the defendant without disclosing certain information to the public.

Trial Details Are Matters of Public Record

Again, it’s important to reiterate that the details of litigation are matters of public record.  For example, media persons are entitled to report on your trial as it unfolds.  They may write about how you reacted during litigation, and they may discuss certain embarrassing details that were presented during an evidentiary hearing.  Even your medical history and psychological history may be made public.

Depending on the circumstances, that litigation is a matter of public record can have far-reaching effects on one’s life.

Suppose that you have sued a defendant for injuries caused in a car accident.  Evidence relating to your psychiatric health and history is presented at trial, as it’s relevant to the case (you have made an argument for damages on the basis of emotional distress).

Now, imagine that media reports on the case, and that it is revealed to your employer that you have a history of psychological illness.  Your employer may begin to view you as a serious risk to his business, and may reduce your hours, fire you, pass you over for promotion, or otherwise interfere with your career.

How to Maintain Privacy While Resolving a Dispute

If you wish to maintain privacy, then you can do so by engaging in various forms of alternative dispute resolution.  Private, out-of-court dispute resolution does not qualify as a matter of public record.  Dispute resolution includes, but is not limited, to:

• Mediation
• Arbitration
• Internal Administrative Processes

Not only is alternative dispute resolution typically faster, less costly, and more informal than traditional litigation, but it’s private — you won’t risk the details of the dispute being revealed to the public.

Alternative dispute resolution is an excellent tool, but in some cases, the defendant is hostile or is simply unwilling to negotiate a fair settlement.  Alternatively, you may receive a poor result in arbitration or pursuant to the administrative process.  At that point, it may be worth it to move forward with litigation and risk public disclosure of the details.

Contact an Experienced Phoenix Injury Lawyer Today

Here at Hirsch & Lyon, our attorneys have several decades of experience representing thousands of injured clients — particularly those in motor vehicle accidents — sue and obtain compensation for their injuries.

We are a truly client-oriented law firm, and this is expressed in a variety of ways.  We are available 24/7 to both prospective and existing clients, and we are willing to meet at any of our offices in the state, or at a location of your choosing.  Throughout the litigation process, we work closely with clients, evaluating their claims, advising them on next steps, and negotiating on their behalf.  At Hirsch & Lyon, we understand that litigation against a defendant can be challenging and emotionally exhausting.  We believe that you should keep more of what you win, because you deserve it.  We therefore charge a lower contingency fee than most other firms — 25%.

Interested in speaking with an experienced Phoenix injury lawyer here at Hirsch & Lyon?  Call (602) 535-1900 today to schedule a free consultation.

In the state of Arizona, as in other states, both plaintiffs and defendants may prevent certain evidence from being introduced into the lawsuit, to their benefit.  An effective evidentiary strategy is critical to success in a motor vehicle lawsuit, or in any other civil lawsuit — personal injury or otherwise.

Generally speaking, the defendant will attempt to introduce evidence that undermines your various claims.  For example, if you apologized to the defendant after the occurrence of a motor vehicle accident, the defendant may argue that this post-accident apology constituted an admission of fault, and that it is therefore relevant to the injury claims at-issue.  Alternatively, the defendant may attempt to introduce evidence of a statement made by a witness at the scene of the accident.  Depending on the circumstances, however, each of these statements may be suppressed (to your benefit).

Evidentiary Privileges

As the plaintiff in an Arizona motor vehicle accident lawsuit, you are likely to encounter a number of unexpected challenges in the evidentiary context.  Oftentimes, for example, the defendant will attempt to undermine your injury claims by asserting that they are “made up” or exaggerated in some way, perhaps by introducing evidence of your past psychiatric records with your therapist.  This is a broad overreach, however, unless you have made your mental health an issue in the lawsuit — the Arizona medical record privilege shields gives you the right to suppress the introduction of medical record evidence that is not relevant to the injury claims at-issue.

Other evidentiary privileges giving you the right to suppress evidence include, but are not necessarily limited, to the:

• Attorney-Client privilege
• Spousal privilege
• Physician-patient privilege
• Penitent privilege
• And more

Application of the Hearsay Rule

The hearsay rule is almost universally applicable, in Arizona and elsewhere.  Put simply, the hearsay rule prevents certain statements that are made outside of the courtroom setting from being admitted into evidence for the purpose of proving that the content of the statement at-issue is true.  The intention of the hearsay rule is twofold: 1) to prevent the introduction of unreliable statements, and 2) to give litigating parties the opportunity to formally cross-examine the person who has made the statement at-issue.  If a court were to consistently allow the admission of hearsay statements, then the defendant could introduce statements that have no bearing in reality and that are not properly subject to scrutiny.

If you found that a bit confusing, there’s no need to worry!  Consider the following example for clarity.

Imagine that you are injured in a motor vehicle accident.  The defendant would like to introduce evidence of a statement made by your difficult neighbor.  At the time of the accident, your neighbor made a statement claiming that you are exaggerating your injuries.  Under Arizona law, however, you would likely be entitled to suppress the admission of such evidence pursuant to the hearsay rule.  The statement made by the neighbor cannot be introduced to “prove” that you are exaggerating your injuries.  Even if the defendant wished to introduce such evidence as proof of your reputation for exaggeration, it would likely be considered unfairly prejudicial to your case.

In Arizona, there are a number of hearsay exceptions to keep an eye out for, however.  The defendant may be allowed to introduce hearsay evidence if it constitutes a present sense impression, excited utterance, statement for medical diagnosis, recorded recollection, part of a public record, and more.

Balancing Evidentiary Factors

In Arizona, the Rules of Evidence (Rule 403, to be exact) gives a court power to exclude relevant evidence if — on the whole — its value to the case is outweighed by certain dangerous factors, such as the risk of unfair prejudice, issue confusion, misleading the jury, and undue delay, among other factors.  Your attorney will argue that damaging evidence (if it does not fall within an evidentiary privilege or within the hearsay umbrella) is either irrelevant, or that it is relevant but is outweighed by these factors.

Connect to a Skilled Phoenix Car Accident Lawyer Today

Have you been injured in a motor vehicle accident by another?  Arizona law may give you the opportunity to litigate your injury claims and recover damages as compensation.  Success in litigation requires that you overcome the various evidentiary roadblocks that the defendant is likely to challenge you with.

Hirsch & Lyon is a Phoenix-based law firm whose attorneys boast decades of combined experience representing clients in a range of personal injury litigation, including motor vehicle accident claims.  We are aggressive advocates for our clients, and provide discounted contingency fees, so our clients can keep more of their damages.

Call (602) 535-1900 to get in touch with an experienced Phoenix car accident lawyer here at Hirsch & Lyon.