Arizona Accident Lawyer Blog

A tragic fatal auto accident in Arizona left one person dead. Veronica M. Vensor, 31, of Phoenix, died Sunday, June 15, 2008 after her car was hit on eastbound U.S. 60 near Greenfield Road, Arizona Department of Public Safety officers said. DPS officers said Vensor's 1997 Saturn was hit about 6:45 p.m. by a 2005 Toyota driven by Clarence D. Corbin, 73, of Queen Creek. Vensor was taken to a hospital where she was pronounced dead.

The Arizona Republic reports that, according to police, they did now know why Ms. Vensor’s car was stopped and not pulled over.

These types of crashes raise the possibility of civil or criminal penalties for a driver who caused the collision. At the time of this report, it appears that fault had not yet been determined. As Arizona is a pure comparative fault state, there can be more than one cause to an incident such as this. Why the car was broken down, how long it was broken down, and why it was still in the regular lanes of travel - as opposed to the breakdown lanes - must be examined. Why Mr. Corbin failed to see Ms. Vensor’s vehicle and why he was unable to avoid the vehicle - if he did see it - will probably require expert analysis.

Continue reading " Fatal Arizona Car Crash Kills Phoenix Woman " »

CNN, among others, have reported about the horrible bus accident that killed nine people when it left the right side of the highway on its way to Phoenix Arizona and rolled over. Of note, the police who investigated the scene noted that the road was not icy, a condition that would have been the first suspected cause of such a crash.

Our thoughts go out to the family of all of those involved in this tragic end to what should have been an uneventful bus ride. It will probably be a long time until there is a final outcome of the Sherriff’s investigation. The initial reports of the bus trip and the ski vacation to Telluride do not offer any insight. However, may obvious questions are raised about how such a fatal bus accident could have occurred.

Each of the families of those Arizona residents that were killed and the victims who were fortunate enough to survive the bus tumbling 41 feet down an embankment. They have the right to seek out an experienced Arizona personal injury lawyer to determine what rights they have.

Tucson’s NBC affiliate, KVOA, has a story that should be of interest to more people. According to the article, Daniel Lowe was killed in an Arizona auto accident when his car was hit by Patti Salonic while Salonic was believed to be undergoing a seizure. Understandably, the mother that suffered this unspeakable loss, Penny Lowe, is speaking out about the lack of criminal charges when someone having a seizure while driving causes serious injury or death to an innocent motorist.

We would not even pretend to understand the depth of the pain that Ms. Lowe must feel, but we certainly can related to the legal issue that is presented. Just like the criminal laws in Arizona, the civil laws also side with the person who is having a seizure in many cases. As a lawyer that represents plaintiffs - people who were injured due to the neglect of others - we have had multiple cases over the years where the excuse of the accident causing driver was that they were having a seizure. Believe it or not, this is known under the law as an “Act of G-d” and thus there is no liability. Or, at least that is what the person having the seizure always claims as a defense.

Certainly, there are cases where that will be true. However, when trying to recover compensation in a personal injury or wrongful death claim, the accident-causing driver’s seizure does not answer the question: it raises more. Was this the driver’s first seizure? How often does the driver have seizures? Was the driver being followed by a doctor for seizures? If not, why not? If so, was the prescription working. If it was working, did the seizure happened because the accident-causing driver failed to take the medication, yet chose to drive anyway and put innocent people in jeopardy. If the prescriptions had not been working, how can the driver justify getting behind the wheel and putting innocent lives at risk.

Continue reading " Arizona Auto Accidents Could Be Cause By Drivers With Seizures " »

According to an ABC news report, trucks carrying more than 26,000 pounds will have to greatly reduce their speed on Highway 68. Apparently, this was done in an effort to reduce the high number of annual trucking collisions on this roadway, a reported average of 25 truck crashes per year on westbound Highway 68. Considering the devastating results of trucking collisions, the intent of this measure is applauded. Hopefully, the desired change - a reduction of trucking accidents that injury motorists on Arizona highways - can be accomplished.

The story reports that once the signs are posted on Oct. 29 and 30, the speed limit will drop from 65 mph to 50 mph between mile marker 13 and Davis Dam Road. For all other vehicles, the speed limit will remain 65.

If you or someone you love has been injured in an Arizona truck accident, contact the top Phoenix personal injury attorneys at The Breyer Law Offices today. The initial consultation is free of charge, and if we agree to accept your case, we will work on a contingent fee basis, which means we get paid for our services only if there is a monetary award or recovery of funds. Don't delay! You may have a valid claim and be entitled to compensation for your injuries, but a lawsuit must be filed before the statute of limitations expires.

According to the Phoenix New Times, Arizona DPS has requested that the news media avoid making interview requests of family members of Bruce Harrolle who died this week in the line of duty when he was killed in an aviation accident when he was struck by helicopter rotor blades. Apparently, DPS claims that relatives are being overwhelmed with interview requests.

I agree with DPS on this issue, although I believe it should be expanded. Not as a matter of law, but as a matter of decency. Why must grieving families be subjected to piles of media on their lawn? Sure, it apparently makes for a more interesting news story. And, sure, freedom of the press must include the right to ask for an interview. However, not every right needs to be used at every opportunity.

As it is, this family is put under serious time constraints. After they get through the initial period of mourning, Arizona’s laws greatly limit the amount of time in which the surviving wife and children have to make certain claims. Already - and most likely unbeknownst to the family - the time to make certain claims that this family may need to make to address certain legal issues may already been down to less than six months, and almost certainly less than a year.

My point is that this family must be going through pain most should never have to experience, a tragic loss of a beloved and needed family member. When they can come back to any sense of reality, they will have all sorts of pressing issues to discuss. I cannot see any advantage to this family - or any other - to have to further deal with a media which can provide no benefit to them. The media has a right to do as they have, and I support that right. The media also has the right - in this case and following all other tragic accidents or Arizona wrongful death cases - to exercise their right to show restraint and respect.

Continue reading " Family of Man Killed in Helicopter Accident Seeks Relief " »

In the coming months in this state, we are going to hear a lot about something called "tort reform." We're going to hear a lot about what's called "capping damages” or “limiting pain and suffering awards." Keep in mind, the problem is not actually a battle of doctors versus lawyers as it will be portrayed in the media. The problem rests squarely on the shoulders of the insurance industry.

As those of you who read this article know, I am always quick to point out my bias. In this case, I do not have quite as much as you may think. It is true that I am a personal injury lawyer. It is also true that my wife and I help people who have suffered serious personal injuries. However, the vast majority of our practice is devoted to helping those injured outside of medical negligence. Though I have strong feelings about any subject relating to helping the injured, I also have strong feelings about protecting the doctors and allowing them to practice medicine and thrive.

The idea being debated is whether to “cap” damages. In other words, after a jury has found a doctor negligent and found a fair amount of general damages to be, say, $500,000 – and after a judge who heard the case does not strike down the award as unreasonable – both the judge and jury are overruled. An arbitrary ‘cap” on the damages is put in place, preventing the person that was a victim from receiving the full damages. Even if the doctor admits he caused the errors and admits the person will spend every day for the rest of his life in excruciating pain as a result of his admitted mistake the jury is limited in the amount it can award for general damages.

Continue reading " YOU REALLY WANT TO PROTECT OUR DOCTORS? DON’T CAP DAMAGES, CAP THE INSURANCE INDUSTRY " »

IS A CAP ON JURY AWARDS A GOOD IDEA? THAT DEPENDS. HOW DO YOU FEEL ABOUT PROTECTING ARIZONA’S CHILDREN AN ELDERY?

As I use this space to delve into the issue of tort “reform,” I want to address a couple of items.

As I want to be fair, I am always quick to point out my bias. I am a personal injury lawyer. My wife and I run our practice helping the seriously injured. Though I have strong feelings about any subject relating to helping the injured, I also have strong feelings about protecting the doctors and allowing them to practice medicine and thrive. However, capping damages does not protect most of our doctors. Instead, it protects the most negligent doctors. It does not only hurt the victims of that neglect, but hurts the most seriously injured the most.

The idea being debated is whether to “cap” damages. In other words, after a jury has found a doctor negligent and found a fair amount of general damages to be, say, $500,000 – and after a judge who heard the case does not strike down the award as unreasonable – both the judge and jury are overruled. An arbitrary ‘cap” on the damages is put in place, preventing the person that was a victim from receiving the full damages. Even if the doctor admits he caused the errors and admits the person will spend every day for the rest of his life in excruciating pain as a result of his admitted mistake the jury is limited in the amount it can award for special damages.

Of course, a cap on general damages will limit some lawsuits. Mostly, it will affect children and the elderly. It is, above all, these groups that will suffer the most harm. It is these groups that will be left open to almost any injury caused by a doctor and have no way to address it in the legal system.

Let's use an example. Assume that a 35 year old man making $50,000.00 a year went into get his tonsils out. A simple surgery. Well, the surgery failed because the anesthesiologist did not realize that the oxygen that was being supplied to help the patient breathe had been cut off. It was his job to monitor the flow of oxygen. Assume the anesthesiologist admits he was not paying attention and failed to see that the machine monitoring the flow of oxygen had been unplugged. Though an alarm should have sounded when this happened, the anesthesiologist admits he made many mistakes that caused someone who went for a simple procedure -- a tonsillectomy -- to come out brain dead. This person will live the rest of his life in a vegetative state.

What does this mean? There will not be huge medical bills. The family can care for this person. But he will not know his name. He will not raise his children. He will not be there for his family. He will simply live out the rest of his years having no understanding of where he is, or who he is.

Now, in this case, even with an award and a cap on damages, you can expect a lawsuit will still come. The lawsuit will come because of the wages lost. The lost wages to this individual will be over a million dollars. Even if you cap the damages, it will not likely prevent the family from bringing this case. Now, of course, this case has merit. Someone made a major mistake and somebody will pay. Unfortunately, the value in this case exists only for the person making a very good living while young. If the same admitted neglect and same horrible outcome happened to a child or a retiree? This hypothetical anesthesiologist walks away without facing a lawsuit. It will likely never be filed. Quite simply, the cost of bringing the lawsuit will be too high with a cap in place.

Continue reading " Caps on Jury Awards " »

My short article today has one very simple, boring message. Oh yeah, and by the way, it could be the difference between financial ruin and the chance to recover from tragedy: Call your auto insurance company or agent today. Buy Uninsured and Underinsured Motorist coverage. Lots of it. Sound boring? Seem unimportant compared to the rest of your day’s activities? Maybe even a little surprising coming from me?

First, let me make clear that I am not doing this for the purpose of helping the insurance industry increase its profits. I am not an insurance agent. Don’t work for an insurance company. And, in fact, as a lawyer that helps people who have suffered serious injury or the families who have lost loved ones in an Arizona auto accident, a significant portion of my time is spent in battling the insurance companies. However, I have seen – over and over again – the affect of having, or not having, uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage.

So, what is this coverage, and why is a personal injury lawyer discussing it? I have many clients that have been severely injured while driving or riding in a car, but the car crash was not their fault. However, their medical bills, lost income, and other expenses were very high. Immediately, we turn to the party at fault. But what do we do when the bills and lost income are $50,000, but the other driver has no insurance? What if the at-fault driver has $15,000 of insurance, which cannot even pay $50,000 or more of injury related bills?

Continue reading " HOW TO SAVE $10 A MONTH . . . AND RISK EVERYTHING YOU HAVE " »

Be thankful that you live in Arizona. Be thankful that we have, on the whole, good judges that do their job and are not beholden to any special interest and are not relying upon the next election cycle to keep them in office.

I am a trial lawyer. I spend much of my time in court before Arizona judges. Many of the issues that greatly affect my clients are decided upon by trial court judges and appellate court justices. So, while I have had my share of disagreements with the rulings made in our courts (Rule #1: Any judge that disagrees with the position I advocate must have gotten in wrong!) I was recently reminded just how good our judges and justices are.

Having been born and raised in the Detroit area (Go MSU! Go Green!) what happens in the State of Michigan remains of interest to me. In the State of Michigan, the Supreme Court judges are actually elected. Therefore, Michigan has a situation where the highest court in the state – the one that has final say on the interpretation and application of the laws of that state- has justices making decisions knowing they will have to do what is popular (not necessarily correct) to get re-elected. How bad can it be when judges are beholden to corporate or other special interest for reelection? This bad:

Margarette Eby was raped and stabbed to death in Michigan in 1988. Her murder went unsolved until 2002, when DNA tests not even in existence in 1988 were used to determine that Jeffrey Gorton, an employee of a company owned by his parents, entered Eby's residence to repair an automatic sprinkler system and returned to rape and kill her.

Once the DNA results came back, Eby’s daughter filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Gorton and his parents’ company. In most states in the country, this would not be a problem. Sure, the lawsuit was brought after the statute of limitations (at that time, three years in the State of Michigan) had run, but Michigan had adopted the “discovery rule” since at least 1963, basically saying (as most jurisdictions do) that a party is not penalized where there is no possible way to determine who the defendant was, and it was that very defendant that purposefully concealed his identity.

Continue reading " WELCOME TO THE STATE OF ARIZONA: WHERE WE DO NOT CHANGE LAWS TO BENEFIT CORPORATIONS BY HELPING CONVICTED MURDERERS " »

Let's start with the basics. How does health insurance work? At its core, health insurance is a way to protect you from financial disaster in a time of need. You pay for health insurance so that, when you need it most, you will not have to pay huge amounts of money that sends you into bankruptcy.

OK, so health insurance is valuable to the average person. How about hospitals? Why do they accept patients with health insurance? Among other reasons, a hospital accepts health insurance because it is a guaranteed form of payment. Do hospitals get paid the total amount they bill health insurance companies? Of course not. For any of you who have seen a medical bill, a hospital may send a $10,000 bill to a health insurance company, yet only get paid $6,000. Why? Because that is the agreement between the health insurer and the hospital. If you have a $10,000 bill but your health insurance company sends an agreed upon reimbursement of $6,000 to the hospital, can the hospital come and take your money? No . . . right? Well, let’s just say under some of the most serious conditions – at times when you need it most – Arizona’s lawmakers have built in a way for hospitals to come and take money that would normally belong to you.

Imagine somebody, we’ll call him Mr. Unlucky, is involved in a serious Arizona auto accident. Through no fault of his own, Mr. Unlucky is sent to the hospital for care. After many weeks of care, Mr. Unlucky has incurred $200,000 in medical bills. Worse yet, he cannot go back to work. He will not be able to work for a full year. He is the main wage earner in his family. Without money, his house will be foreclosed upon, his debts will go through the roof, and Mr. Unlucky, his wife and his kids will be homeless.

Fortunately, Mr. Unlucky appears to be protected. Mr. Unlucky has health insurance, and they have paid the hospital the $120,000 that is the agreed upon rate of reimbursement. Mr. Unlucky also found a trustworthy personal injury lawyer. That lawyer has helped him receive a reasonable insurance settlement. Now, it looks like Mr. Unlucky will be able to get on his feet, again. Oh, wait just a second. We forgot about that unusual Arizona law that puts the hospital ahead of the victim.

Now, in most states, Mr. Unlucky would receive his settlement money, continue to pay his bills, get better, and eventually get back on his feet again. He would not have the stress of losing his family home piled on top of his daily pain and rehabilitation. At least the money troubles would be greatly diminished. Arizona? Well, here comes that law.

Continue reading " JUST WHEN YOU NEED IT MOST, YOUR HEALTH INSURANCE DOES NOT PROTECT YOU IN ARIZONA " »

Be thankful that you live in Arizona. Throughout the last decade, many states throughout the USA have overturned hundreds of years of law that was built on old-fashioned common sense and trust in people. These states have taken the final determination on civil cases away from the people, handing that power over to politicians. These other states have increased insurance company profits to record levels, at the expense of a justice system that has existed in our country since the time the US Constitution was written.

What have so many states done? They have limited trial by jury, overturning laws that allow judge and jury to have final say in the fair value of injury cases. They have limited the right to fair recovery by innocent victims of the negligence of others.

Let’s start with a fact upon which I think we can all agree: When somebody else’s negligence causes serious personal injury to an innocent individual, the negligent person should be responsible for his own actions. The innocent, injury person should not have to pay our of his own pocket when his injury was caused by another. We likely all agree that there is a right to fair compensation for medical bills, lost wages, their loss of enjoyment of life, restricted activity, and more. While we may not all agree on exactly how much compensation would be fair for “pain and suffering,” we can at least agree that people who are victims of the carelessness of others should not suffer as a result. This is a very basic belief of our justice system, going all the way back to – and specifically protected by – the United States Constitution.

But our country has seen a massive campaign of disinformation talking about our “litigious” society. After all of these years, it seems that everybody “knows” that lawsuits are being filed in record numbers, right? Wrong. According to the US Department of Justice in its 2005 report, the number of personal injury cases resolved in U.S. district courts fell 79 percent between 1985 and 2003. From 1992 to 2001, the number of personal injury cases filed in state courts decreased by 31.8 percent.

Continue reading " ARIZONA: WHERE JUSTICE STILL MATTERS " »

That’s right. If you did not read about it elsewhere, let me be the one to tell you about it: a man in Nebraska sued G-d. In his lawsuit, he blamed G-d for terrorism, tornadoes, and a host of other ills. His point, he said, was to prove that anyone can file a lawsuit about anything in this country. Let me be the first to predict what this lawsuit will prove: our system of justice works.

How can that be? I am sure many people thought the fact that a lawsuit can be filed against G-d is proof of a broken system. I mean, regardless of your own beliefs, I think we all agree that the Almighty is not going to be served with a lawsuit and show up to defend himself in a Nebraska courtroom. How ridiculous it is to sue G-d, and how horrible is a system that allows it to happen? And how can I tell you that this lawsuit against G-d will prove to everybody that our justice system works? I will answer that final question very soon. First, it is necessary to understand how our system works.

It is true: anybody can sue anyone at anytime for any reason. That is a fact. You can sue me because you do not like the shoes I am wearing. I can sue you because you do not understand just how great the Michigan State University basketball team is. Your neighbor can sue his wife for failing to order the food he wanted at a restaurant. A student can sue a professor because she thinks the professor talks too much in class. And, yes, anyone can sue G-d for causing tornadoes, terrorism, floods, the University of Michigan football team, and any other evil that affects our lives.

You see, to “sue” someone just means that someone has taken a piece of paper, written the word “Complaint” on it, paid a fee and given that piece of paper to the court. When a lawsuit is filed (i.e. when the piece of paper is given to the Court) there is no judge sitting at the front desk, reading every piece of paper the moment it is filed. Instead, someone hands gives the papers, pays the fee, and a lawsuit has officially “been filed.” Somebody has been sued. That is it. That simple.

Continue reading " DID YOU HEAR THE ONE ABOUT THE GUY IN NEBRASKA THAT SUED G-D? " »