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.
In practice, it’s always more complex. That’s why hiring the best Peoria, Arizona slip-and-fall lawyer is vitally important following a slip-and-fall accident. Expect that in almost every case a negligent defendant will try to blame the injured person. This argument is so popular because it allows defendants to contend that the plaintiff “should have watched where [he or she] were going,” or something along those lines.
That’s why it’s essential to retain an experienced Arizona personal injury attorney who will do everything possible to focus the blame where it belongs— on the negligent property owner. Even if 10 percent of the fault is judged to lie with the injured person, this has a significant impact on the amount of compensation actually received by the injury victim and should be disputed if possible.