Seven (7) people were injured Sunday night after their SUV collided with another vehicle on Highway 89 in Prescott.
Police believe the 38-year-old male driver of a Kia Sportage was under the influence of drugs, when he drifted over into oncoming traffic. The driver of the Suburban couldn’t avoid him, and the collision occurred. All seven (7) of the people in the Suburban were taken to the hospital. Six (6) passengers were all children, ages 5 to 14. The extent of their injuries is not known, however, we do know that two of the children are in serious condition.
The driver of the Kia was transported to Yavapai County Jail after he was released from Yavapai Regional Medical Center. Further investigation had shown that he was under the influence and had possession of dangerous drugs. According to police he was booked on felony charges of criminal damage and seven counts of aggravated assault and endangerment.
When I was searching the web for information related to this crash, I found website after website of law firms advertising DUI and DWI defenses. This should send each and every one of us an important message:
If you have been hurt in a motor vehicle collision, possibly by someone under the influence of drugs or alcohol, you can be sure they are hiring an attorney to protect themselves. Certainly, as an innocent victim, your rights are just as and even more important than that of a wrongdoer, and you must consider your own options to protect yourself, your family and loved ones.
While you consider your options, keep this advice in mind: Do not talk to any insurance company until you have sought advice of an attorney. The single-most mistake that people make, following a motor vehicle accident, is talking to an insurance company about the facts and circumstances of the collision and their injuries. Insurance companies thrive on their ability to obtain early statements from victims of car crashes. Don’t fall prey to this.
You should consider consulting with an attorney as soon as practicable following any motor vehicle accident. The wrongdoer will protect himself, the insurance company will protect its own-----who is protecting you? Consider early a consultation with an experienced personal injury attorney, preferably one who is a certified specialist in injury and wrongful death cases. Protect yourself and your family. No one else will.
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Saturday, July 18, 2009
Bicyclist Hit by Car in Scottsdale
For those of you who read this blog you hear me go on and on about watching for pedestrians and motorcyclists while you are driving. However, I should probably add watching for “bicyclists” to my cautions. Being that we live in Arizona, we have more cyclists on the roads and for more time out of the year than most other places.
On Wednesday afternoon, a bicyclist was riding in the crosswalk going east on Indian School Road at Goldwater Boulevard and he/she was hit by a truck making a right-hand turn. The bicyclist suffered serious head injuries and was taken to the hospital.
We all need to take the time to be more aware of our surroundings. Since bicyclists are supposed to travel in the same direction as the traffic, we have to keep a look out for them and not dismiss them when we see them. We need to be aware of how close a bicyclist is to us and if they are traveling fast enough to catch up to us. Therefore, we need to wait if they are traveling at a speed which will put them in our direction of travel.
At the same time, those of us who ride bicycles need to be more aware. Hello?!! As I tell my kids, if a car hits a pedestrian, a bicyclist, a motorcyclist, who wins? The car wins 100% of the time!!!! When you are in an area that you have a right to be, but you know damn well that if another is negligent you will pay for it---be careful!!!! We do not know the details of this case but there are so many things we can address that could have been factors. Above all, Arizona law requires that bicyclist riding on the roadway obey the same rules as motor vehicles, and, Arizona law prohibits riding your bike in a crosswalk.
Oftentimes, the fault for these accidents is shared (we call that “comparative fault”), and the insurance companies and or the court will take care of it appropriately.
Regardless, drivers and cyclists alike, remain aware of your surroundings. Let’s hope that the bicyclist in this accident is going to be OK.
**If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to email Chris Zachar directly at Czachar@zacharlaw.com, or visit our website at www.ZacharAssociates.com
On Wednesday afternoon, a bicyclist was riding in the crosswalk going east on Indian School Road at Goldwater Boulevard and he/she was hit by a truck making a right-hand turn. The bicyclist suffered serious head injuries and was taken to the hospital.
We all need to take the time to be more aware of our surroundings. Since bicyclists are supposed to travel in the same direction as the traffic, we have to keep a look out for them and not dismiss them when we see them. We need to be aware of how close a bicyclist is to us and if they are traveling fast enough to catch up to us. Therefore, we need to wait if they are traveling at a speed which will put them in our direction of travel.
At the same time, those of us who ride bicycles need to be more aware. Hello?!! As I tell my kids, if a car hits a pedestrian, a bicyclist, a motorcyclist, who wins? The car wins 100% of the time!!!! When you are in an area that you have a right to be, but you know damn well that if another is negligent you will pay for it---be careful!!!! We do not know the details of this case but there are so many things we can address that could have been factors. Above all, Arizona law requires that bicyclist riding on the roadway obey the same rules as motor vehicles, and, Arizona law prohibits riding your bike in a crosswalk.
Oftentimes, the fault for these accidents is shared (we call that “comparative fault”), and the insurance companies and or the court will take care of it appropriately.
Regardless, drivers and cyclists alike, remain aware of your surroundings. Let’s hope that the bicyclist in this accident is going to be OK.
**If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to email Chris Zachar directly at Czachar@zacharlaw.com, or visit our website at www.ZacharAssociates.com
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
14-Year-Old Mesa Girl Dies in Rollover
A 14-year-old girl died after she was ejected from a car that rolled over on the 202 on Saturday evening. The girl’s mother was driving on the 202 near Recker Road when the rear tire of her car blew out. According to DPS, the woman then braked which caused the car to veer sideways and slide into the dirt median. The car then continued into the cable barriers, where it came to a stop upside down.
The girl, identified as Michelle Miranda, was not wearing her seatbelt and was pronounced dead at the scene. The mother was airlifted to the hospital and her current condition is unknown. She was wearing her seatbelt.
Don’t know how many times I have to say this—apparently, not enough.
Seatbelts save lives!!!!!
Arizona law requires that front seat passengers be seatbelted. Arizona law also requires that each passenger 6 or under in the vehicle be seatbelted, no matter where he/she is sitting. As parents, we have a responsibility to make sure that our children are seatbelted at all times. As adult, we have a duty to comply with Arizona law and make sure that all occupants 16 and under are seatbelted. The failure to follow these rules may bring civil liability if a minor in your vehicle sustains injury as a result of seatbelt non-use.
Another factor in this case is tire maintenance. In Arizona, we are probably more likely to have a tire blowout than people in most other states. The high temperatures that beat on Arizona in the summers also beat on our tires. You can help avoid this by regularly checking your air levels in your tires and making sure they are at the manufacturer’s recommended level. Doing this more often in the summer would not be considered unreasonable.
Let’s recap:
1) SEATBELTS! SEATBELTS! SEATBELTS!
2) Regularly check air levels in and be aware of the age and tread depth of your tires.
Please remember, both of these things only take a few seconds to do. As we have seen, they can make all of the difference in the world. Please, don’t let the next one be you.
**If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to email Chris Zachar directly at Czachar@zacharlaw.com, or visit our website at www.ZacharAssociates.com
The girl, identified as Michelle Miranda, was not wearing her seatbelt and was pronounced dead at the scene. The mother was airlifted to the hospital and her current condition is unknown. She was wearing her seatbelt.
Don’t know how many times I have to say this—apparently, not enough.
Seatbelts save lives!!!!!
Arizona law requires that front seat passengers be seatbelted. Arizona law also requires that each passenger 6 or under in the vehicle be seatbelted, no matter where he/she is sitting. As parents, we have a responsibility to make sure that our children are seatbelted at all times. As adult, we have a duty to comply with Arizona law and make sure that all occupants 16 and under are seatbelted. The failure to follow these rules may bring civil liability if a minor in your vehicle sustains injury as a result of seatbelt non-use.
Another factor in this case is tire maintenance. In Arizona, we are probably more likely to have a tire blowout than people in most other states. The high temperatures that beat on Arizona in the summers also beat on our tires. You can help avoid this by regularly checking your air levels in your tires and making sure they are at the manufacturer’s recommended level. Doing this more often in the summer would not be considered unreasonable.
Let’s recap:
1) SEATBELTS! SEATBELTS! SEATBELTS!
2) Regularly check air levels in and be aware of the age and tread depth of your tires.
Please remember, both of these things only take a few seconds to do. As we have seen, they can make all of the difference in the world. Please, don’t let the next one be you.
**If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to email Chris Zachar directly at Czachar@zacharlaw.com, or visit our website at www.ZacharAssociates.com
Friday, July 10, 2009
1-Year-Old Mesa Boy Drowns
Nobody wants to remember the 4th of July as the day they lost their baby but that is exactly what a Mesa family faces right now. Our hearts go out to them.
Saturday morning, per reports, the family lost track of their one-year-old for about 10 to 15 minutes. You might think, how can this happen? Unfortunately, those who have children know very well how this can occur. You feel safe within your own home, and you leave the little one playing in their room with their toys, etc…, 10-15 minutes can get away from you very quickly. Then someone says, hey, where is X? The search begins. In this case, horrified, their search ended when they found him in the backyard pool. The boy’s father called 911 and began CPR. When the fire department arrived the child had no pulse and was not breathing. The boy was taken to the hospital where they continued to try and resuscitate, him but after another 30 minutes he was pronounced dead.
The family’s pool is an above ground pool and it is only 3-1/2 feet deep. According to Mesa Fire Department spokesman Thor Watson, “People don’t think about pool fences if it’s an above ground pool. But those pools have ladders that lead right into the water.”
How could a 1 year old get up the ladder? Again, all parents can answer this question. Children seem to be natural born climbers, and there is little they love to do more than climb. Inasmuch as ours hearts ache for the family, at the same time, I do not understand why anyone would think that an above ground pool would not need a fence surrounding it. The ladders leading up to them are very enticing to children. Having any type of pool, unprotected, is a recipe for disaster.
Everyone needs to understand that above ground pools are subject to the same state legal requirements for an enclosure around them as are in ground pools. ARS §1681 states:
A. A swimming pool, or other contained body of water that contains water eighteen inches or more in depth at any point and that is wider than eight feet at any point and is intended for swimming, shall be protected by an enclosure surrounding the pool area, as provided in this section.
B. A swimming pool or other contained body of water required to be enclosed by subsection A whether a belowground or aboveground pool shall meet the following requirements:
1. Be entirely enclosed by at least a five foot wall, fence or other barrier as measured on the exterior side of the wall, fence or barrier.
2. Have no openings in the wall, fence or barrier through which a spherical object four inches in diameter can pass. The horizontal components of any wall, fence or barrier shall be spaced not less than forty-five inches apart measured vertically or shall be placed on the pool side of a wall, fence or barrier which shall not have any opening greater than one and three-quarter inches measured horizontally. Wire mesh or chain link fences shall have a maximum mesh size of one and three-quarter inches measured horizontally.
3. Gates for the enclosure shall:
(a) Be self-closing and self-latching with the latch located at least fifty-four inches above the underlying ground or on the pool side of the gate with a release mechanism at least five inches below the top of the gate and no opening greater than one-half inch within twenty-four inches of the release mechanism or be secured by a padlock or similar device which requires a key, electric opener or integral combination which can have the latch at any height.
(b) Open outward from the pool.
4. The wall, fence or barrier shall not contain openings, handholds or footholds accessible from the exterior side of the enclosure that can be used to climb the wall, fence or barrier.
5. The wall, fence or barrier shall be at least twenty inches from the water's edge.
We shouldn’t need to say that one more drowning in Arizona is far too many. Unfortunately, all too often, we do.
**If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to email Chris Zachar directly at Czachar@zacharlaw.com, or visit our website at www.ZacharAssociates.com
Saturday morning, per reports, the family lost track of their one-year-old for about 10 to 15 minutes. You might think, how can this happen? Unfortunately, those who have children know very well how this can occur. You feel safe within your own home, and you leave the little one playing in their room with their toys, etc…, 10-15 minutes can get away from you very quickly. Then someone says, hey, where is X? The search begins. In this case, horrified, their search ended when they found him in the backyard pool. The boy’s father called 911 and began CPR. When the fire department arrived the child had no pulse and was not breathing. The boy was taken to the hospital where they continued to try and resuscitate, him but after another 30 minutes he was pronounced dead.
The family’s pool is an above ground pool and it is only 3-1/2 feet deep. According to Mesa Fire Department spokesman Thor Watson, “People don’t think about pool fences if it’s an above ground pool. But those pools have ladders that lead right into the water.”
How could a 1 year old get up the ladder? Again, all parents can answer this question. Children seem to be natural born climbers, and there is little they love to do more than climb. Inasmuch as ours hearts ache for the family, at the same time, I do not understand why anyone would think that an above ground pool would not need a fence surrounding it. The ladders leading up to them are very enticing to children. Having any type of pool, unprotected, is a recipe for disaster.
Everyone needs to understand that above ground pools are subject to the same state legal requirements for an enclosure around them as are in ground pools. ARS §1681 states:
A. A swimming pool, or other contained body of water that contains water eighteen inches or more in depth at any point and that is wider than eight feet at any point and is intended for swimming, shall be protected by an enclosure surrounding the pool area, as provided in this section.
B. A swimming pool or other contained body of water required to be enclosed by subsection A whether a belowground or aboveground pool shall meet the following requirements:
1. Be entirely enclosed by at least a five foot wall, fence or other barrier as measured on the exterior side of the wall, fence or barrier.
2. Have no openings in the wall, fence or barrier through which a spherical object four inches in diameter can pass. The horizontal components of any wall, fence or barrier shall be spaced not less than forty-five inches apart measured vertically or shall be placed on the pool side of a wall, fence or barrier which shall not have any opening greater than one and three-quarter inches measured horizontally. Wire mesh or chain link fences shall have a maximum mesh size of one and three-quarter inches measured horizontally.
3. Gates for the enclosure shall:
(a) Be self-closing and self-latching with the latch located at least fifty-four inches above the underlying ground or on the pool side of the gate with a release mechanism at least five inches below the top of the gate and no opening greater than one-half inch within twenty-four inches of the release mechanism or be secured by a padlock or similar device which requires a key, electric opener or integral combination which can have the latch at any height.
(b) Open outward from the pool.
4. The wall, fence or barrier shall not contain openings, handholds or footholds accessible from the exterior side of the enclosure that can be used to climb the wall, fence or barrier.
5. The wall, fence or barrier shall be at least twenty inches from the water's edge.
We shouldn’t need to say that one more drowning in Arizona is far too many. Unfortunately, all too often, we do.
**If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to email Chris Zachar directly at Czachar@zacharlaw.com, or visit our website at www.ZacharAssociates.com
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
Grandmother Pushing Stroller Hit by Car and Killed
Jaleeh Aboozia of Gilbert was struck by a car and killed Friday night. The 60-year-old grandmother was pushing her grandson in a stroller across Warner road just before 8:00 p.m. when she was struck by a car heading east. According to the police, the driver swerved at the last minute, missing the stroller.
The police said Aboozia was crossing Warner from a residential street, with no traffic signal. According to Arizona law (ARS §28-793), a pedestrian crossing a roadway at any point other than within a marked crosswalk or within an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles on the roadway. At the same time, according to Arizona law, (ARS §28-794), every driver of a vehicle shall 1) Exercise due care to avoid colliding with any pedestrian on any roadway, 2) give warning by sounding the horn when necessary, and 3) exercise proper precaution on observing a child or a confused or incapacitated person on a roadway.
According to these statutes Aboozia should have yielded the right-of way to the driver of the car however, also according to these statutes, the driver of the car should have exercised reasonable care in avoiding Aboozia and the stroller. Since we do not know all of the logistics of this accident, we cannot say whether or not Aboozia or the driver did all they could do to avoid the tragic outcome.
Arizona is a comparative negligence state. That means that when an accident occurs, more than one person may be found at fault, and the responsibility for damages caused will be allocated as a percentage to each person who is at fault. It can be difficult to decide how comparative negligence would affect this case when we don’t know all the facts. However, we can hypothesize that both Aboozia and the driver may well shoulder some of the fault in this accident. Could Aboozia have paid better attention, waited longer to cross, or maybe walked a little further to a marked crosswalk? Could the driver have also paid better attention, was she driving too fast, could she have given Aboozia more advance warning of her approach?
These are all reasonable questions and the answers could have changed the outcome of this accident drastically. Indeed, it is the answers to these types of questions that bring about the potential for lawsuits. If the parties cannot resolve these issues on their own, then they might well agree to submit all of the evidence into court and ask the judge or a jury to decide the issues for them. Indeed, this is what the courts are designed for: An orderly and organized system for the resolution of disputes.
Sadly, more caution could have avoided this tragic result. Please be careful in crossing busy streets, and, as drivers, please maintain an awareness of your surroundings. No one wins when a horrible accident like this occurs.
**If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to email Chris Zachar directly at Czachar@zacharlaw.com, or visit our website at www.ZacharAssociates.com
The police said Aboozia was crossing Warner from a residential street, with no traffic signal. According to Arizona law (ARS §28-793), a pedestrian crossing a roadway at any point other than within a marked crosswalk or within an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles on the roadway. At the same time, according to Arizona law, (ARS §28-794), every driver of a vehicle shall 1) Exercise due care to avoid colliding with any pedestrian on any roadway, 2) give warning by sounding the horn when necessary, and 3) exercise proper precaution on observing a child or a confused or incapacitated person on a roadway.
According to these statutes Aboozia should have yielded the right-of way to the driver of the car however, also according to these statutes, the driver of the car should have exercised reasonable care in avoiding Aboozia and the stroller. Since we do not know all of the logistics of this accident, we cannot say whether or not Aboozia or the driver did all they could do to avoid the tragic outcome.
Arizona is a comparative negligence state. That means that when an accident occurs, more than one person may be found at fault, and the responsibility for damages caused will be allocated as a percentage to each person who is at fault. It can be difficult to decide how comparative negligence would affect this case when we don’t know all the facts. However, we can hypothesize that both Aboozia and the driver may well shoulder some of the fault in this accident. Could Aboozia have paid better attention, waited longer to cross, or maybe walked a little further to a marked crosswalk? Could the driver have also paid better attention, was she driving too fast, could she have given Aboozia more advance warning of her approach?
These are all reasonable questions and the answers could have changed the outcome of this accident drastically. Indeed, it is the answers to these types of questions that bring about the potential for lawsuits. If the parties cannot resolve these issues on their own, then they might well agree to submit all of the evidence into court and ask the judge or a jury to decide the issues for them. Indeed, this is what the courts are designed for: An orderly and organized system for the resolution of disputes.
Sadly, more caution could have avoided this tragic result. Please be careful in crossing busy streets, and, as drivers, please maintain an awareness of your surroundings. No one wins when a horrible accident like this occurs.
**If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to email Chris Zachar directly at Czachar@zacharlaw.com, or visit our website at www.ZacharAssociates.com
Friday, July 3, 2009
Parents and Three children Injured in Loop 202 Crash
Tuesday morning a family of five was traveling eastbound on the Loop 202 when their vehicle hit a truck parked in the emergency lane. All five family members were taken to the hospital by ambulance. Apparently, the driver of the truck had pulled to the side of the road and parked in the emergency lane. While it was there, the driver of the victim’s vehicle became distracted and ran into the parked truck. The injured were all taken to the hospital.
According to police, all five of the people injured were properly restrained. Whew! Thank the heavens for responsible parents!
Liability assessment: We do not know why the driver of the truck had to pull over, where he was on the roadway, and whether anything he did contributed to this collision. The police have not relayed how long the truck was parked there, or whether the driver was even present at the time of the accident. There certainly appears to be fault on the part of the driver of the vehicle that the victims were in. Accordingly to police, at a minimum, he was not paying attention.
Arizona is a comparative fault state. That means that more than one person can be found responsible for any accident. Also, more than one person can be found responsible for injuries to another sustained in any accident. For example, the driver of the victims’ vehicle can be found partly responsible, as well as can the driver of the parked vehicle, if discovered that his actions in some way were unreasonable, and contributed to this collision. But further, IF it were found that the children in the vehicle were not properly seatbelted, and as a result sustained some injuries they would not have otherwise sustained, then an argument could be made that BOTH parents had liability to the children for not taking proper care. The laws of comparative fault stem far and wide. We are all held to the care and actions expected of a reasonable person. Reasonable people pull off to the side and park their vehicles properly and legally. Reasonable people keep their attention on the roadway. Reasonable people make sure they wear seat belts and make sure their children wear their seatbelts.
In assessing liability under Arizona law, each person found to have some liability pays for their percentage of the fault, assessed against the total damages awarded. This has been determined to be the fairest way to assess and appropriate justice in Arizona. What do you think? Do you agree?
A speedy recovery is wished for the people injured in this unfortunate accident.
**If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to email Chris Zachar directly at Czachar@zacharlaw.com, or visit our website at www.ZacharAssociates.com
According to police, all five of the people injured were properly restrained. Whew! Thank the heavens for responsible parents!
Liability assessment: We do not know why the driver of the truck had to pull over, where he was on the roadway, and whether anything he did contributed to this collision. The police have not relayed how long the truck was parked there, or whether the driver was even present at the time of the accident. There certainly appears to be fault on the part of the driver of the vehicle that the victims were in. Accordingly to police, at a minimum, he was not paying attention.
Arizona is a comparative fault state. That means that more than one person can be found responsible for any accident. Also, more than one person can be found responsible for injuries to another sustained in any accident. For example, the driver of the victims’ vehicle can be found partly responsible, as well as can the driver of the parked vehicle, if discovered that his actions in some way were unreasonable, and contributed to this collision. But further, IF it were found that the children in the vehicle were not properly seatbelted, and as a result sustained some injuries they would not have otherwise sustained, then an argument could be made that BOTH parents had liability to the children for not taking proper care. The laws of comparative fault stem far and wide. We are all held to the care and actions expected of a reasonable person. Reasonable people pull off to the side and park their vehicles properly and legally. Reasonable people keep their attention on the roadway. Reasonable people make sure they wear seat belts and make sure their children wear their seatbelts.
In assessing liability under Arizona law, each person found to have some liability pays for their percentage of the fault, assessed against the total damages awarded. This has been determined to be the fairest way to assess and appropriate justice in Arizona. What do you think? Do you agree?
A speedy recovery is wished for the people injured in this unfortunate accident.
**If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to email Chris Zachar directly at Czachar@zacharlaw.com, or visit our website at www.ZacharAssociates.com
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
Plane Crash in Arizona Kills 4
The plane that crashed and took four lives Wednesday in northeastern Arizona was apparently being watched for drug activity.
The plane had just taken off from the Holbrook airport after refueling. It was traveling from Santa Rosa California to Lago Vista, Texas. Apparently, David Tuntland of Cedar Park, the pilot and owner of the aircraft, had an upset stomach and had to lie down while the plane was being refueled. The plane crashed and caught fire right after takeoff just a quarter-mile east of the airport. All four of the people on board were killed.
The reason as to why the plane crashed is yet unknown. Pilot error? Mechanical problems? When it comes to airplane crashes, claims for personal injury or death are ususally guided by the legal theories of negligence, product liability, or a combination of both. In this incident, negligence may be found on the part of the owner, pilot, or airline maintenace providers. Product liability may be found on the part of the aircraft manufacturer or the manufacturer of a specific aircraft part.
What was the condition of the pilot? Was he fit to fly? Did he perform all required and recommended pre-flight safety checks before deciding to take off? Did weather play a role? Often, winds and heat in the Holbrook area will have an impact on take-off, climb rates, etc… These issues will all have to be investigated, and no doubt, will be investigated by the NTSB (National Transportation Safety Bureau).
Regardless of cause, four (4) persons lost their lives. Our condolences to their families.
If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to email Chris Zachar directly at Czachar@zacharlaw.com, or visit our website at www.ZacharAssociates.com
The plane had just taken off from the Holbrook airport after refueling. It was traveling from Santa Rosa California to Lago Vista, Texas. Apparently, David Tuntland of Cedar Park, the pilot and owner of the aircraft, had an upset stomach and had to lie down while the plane was being refueled. The plane crashed and caught fire right after takeoff just a quarter-mile east of the airport. All four of the people on board were killed.
The reason as to why the plane crashed is yet unknown. Pilot error? Mechanical problems? When it comes to airplane crashes, claims for personal injury or death are ususally guided by the legal theories of negligence, product liability, or a combination of both. In this incident, negligence may be found on the part of the owner, pilot, or airline maintenace providers. Product liability may be found on the part of the aircraft manufacturer or the manufacturer of a specific aircraft part.
What was the condition of the pilot? Was he fit to fly? Did he perform all required and recommended pre-flight safety checks before deciding to take off? Did weather play a role? Often, winds and heat in the Holbrook area will have an impact on take-off, climb rates, etc… These issues will all have to be investigated, and no doubt, will be investigated by the NTSB (National Transportation Safety Bureau).
Regardless of cause, four (4) persons lost their lives. Our condolences to their families.
If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to email Chris Zachar directly at Czachar@zacharlaw.com, or visit our website at www.ZacharAssociates.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
