Arizona Accident Lawyer Blog

One aspect that is often surprising in slip-and-fall and trip-and-fall cases is how severe the injuries are. Because people all over the country slip and are not hurt every day, no one expects to see a serious injury occur in a Peoria slip-and-fall or trip-and-fall case. However, we see many unfortunate injuries caused directly by somebody falling in an awkward way or a precarious place. Tragically, there have even been cases in which citizens were killed in slip-and-fall or trip-and-fall situations.

Arizona has passed what are known as the APSA laws. The Adult Protective Services Act was created and designed to help make sure that those who live in nursing home and assisted-living facilities in Peoria, Phoenix, and throughout the state of Arizona are protected. These laws are intended to hold caregivers accountable for their actions.

Continue reading "Peoria Slip and Fall Accident Injuries " »

Arizona is a comparative fault state. This means that Arizona citizens are held responsible in court only for their share of an injury.

We often see cases in which even though a property owner created a dangerous condition (or allowed one to exist) and that condition led to an injury, that landowner will still argue that the wounded person should have paid more attention and was reasonably able to avoid harm. In such situations, the question of comparative fault comes into play. Since the owner or possessor of land knew about the condition-- or even created it—it could be surmised that they should assume the majority share of liability. But if the person who fell also bears a lesser amount of responsibility for the incident, how does that fact effect compensation for the person who was injured?

In theory, it’s deceptively simple: all parties are responsible for their exact percentage of fault. If the person who fell is found to be 20 percent at fault and the person who owned the property is found to be 80 percent at fault, the person who was injured loses 20 percent of the compensation that they would have otherwise received.

Continue reading "Comparative Fault in Peoria Slip and Fall Accident Cases" »

As slip and fall attorneys in Phoenix, Arizona, we get calls on a daily basis about slip and fall law in Arizona. So, we’re presenting some information below that can hopefully answer some questions you might have about a slip and fall case. Keep in mind, though, that all slip and fall accidents are different.

To show negligence in a slip and fall case, you must prove that:

• The owner or possessor of the property where you fell either knew or should have known about an unreasonably dangerous condition.


• That dangerous condition is what caused your fall.


• The fall caused you to sustain your injury.

So, for instance, say you fell at someone else’s house because you tripped over your own feet. Just because you fell at someone else’s home does not mean you have a valid legal claim.

Continue reading "What Arizona Slip and Fall Victims Need to Know" »

One of the biggest misunderstandings of the law exists when it comes to people being hurt on somebody else's property. Very often, people suffer serious injuries when they are out shopping because there is water on the ground, or the ground has gotten wet and slippery and nobody sees that it is slippery and they fall and get seriously hurt. Most people would agree that a slippery floor that is not marked in any way is an unreasonably dangerous condition. However, being injured due to an unreasonable dangerous condition on a store owner's property does not mean that store is at fault. Arizona premises liability law requires that the person who was hurt be able to prove that the store "knew or should have known" of the unreasonably dangerous condition. If another customer spilled a bottle of water and ten seconds later somebody steps in that water, slips and falls, the store is almost never going to be found responsible. It is unlikely it's going to be determined that that store knew or should have known that their floor was wet and reasonably could have prevented the fall if there was only a ten second delay. Therefore, finding the best possible Arizona slip trip and fall lawyer can be vital for someone who's been seriously injured. It is about getting a lawyer who understands all of the steps that must be taken to document the claim and see whether or not it can be proven that either an employee of the defendant created the condition or that the defendant knew or should have known that this dangerous condition existed. Video surveillance, sweep logs, interviewing of witnesses, and other methods can be used to help prove if the store or property owner was at fault.

As Phoenix slip and fall attorneys in Arizona, we get calls every day on the slip and fall law in Arizona. If you have been in a slip and fall accident in Arizona, you need to discuss your case with an experienced personal injury lawyer in Arizona. Every slip and fall case is different. The general law however is that you have to prove that:

1. The owner or possessor of the place you fell knew or should have known of an unreasonably dangerous condition
2. That dangerous condition caused you to fall
3. The fall caused your injury

If you have been injured because of someone else's fault, you should be entitled to receive compensation for your injuries. Let us show you an example of a slip and fall case. Let's assume you fall at someone else's house because you tripped over your own feet. The fact that you fell at someone else's house does not make you have a valid legal claim against the homeowner. You must prove that it was the homeowner's fault by meeting each of the elements, above.

Let's take another example. You are at a store and there is a wet floor that has just been mopped by an employee of the store. You slip and fall on the wet floor because there are no signs. You slip and fall and sustain a torn rotator cuff tear or suffer a broken leg. In this case, the store owner would likely be found to be at fault because the owner of the establishment or his/her employees should have made sure to have warning signs out where the wet floor was so that people were aware that it was slippery. By mopping the floor they created a dangerous condition that they knew or should have known was dangerous to patrons. Now, defendants in cases which allege grocery store slip and falls, convenience store slip and falls, gas station slip and falls, and other types of cases will still try to deny liability or blame the person that was hurt in most cases. This is one of the reasons very few people who are injured in a slip and fall received far settlements unless they have hired an experienced slip and fall lawyer.

Campaign donations are a powerful thing. According to the House of Representatives, a jury cannot be trusted to decide how much money is reasonable compensation to somebody injured by the negligence of a doctor. According to the same people, a jury is fully capable to decide whether a man is guilty, and whether he should be put to death for his crime. A jury is capable of life and death decisions, but not capable to decide decisions relating to money. How can this be? I guess it just depends on who is giving you donations.

A criminal jury and civil jury come from the same people, who live in the same county. They are chosen randomly, so the same people that sit on a criminal trial could have just as easily sat that same day on a medical negligence trial.

For instance, here is an example of two trials that may occur in Maricopa county, during the same week, with the same jurors making the decision:

Trial 1: A doctor is accused of leaving a medical instrument in a baby, which causes severe permanent damage. The baby will suffer for a lifetime from the carelessness. They jury has to decide how much money the insurance company will pay in fair compensation.

Trial 2: A man is accused of shooting a stranger in cold-blood to steal $20. The stranger died. The jury has to decide whether that man is guilty, and whether he should be put to death for his crime.

The same people who became jurors in the first trial could just as easily have been on the second trial. In one case, money rests on a jury’s decision. In the other case, a man’s life rests on a jury’s decision.

Continue reading "WE TRUST YOU TO DECIDE LIFE AND DEATH, WE JUST DO NOT TRUST YOUR OPINION ON MONEY" »