Paramedics were called to a Paradise Valley home on Sunday after a 4-year-old nearly drowned. The boy’s mother was with him by the pool but somehow became distracted long enough for him to enter the pool. When the mother found the boy she pulled him from the water, called 911, and began CPR. He was taken to the hospital.
A 5-year-old girl and her 2-year-old brother were pulled from their backyard pool on Saturday. The parents were inside the house painting when the father realized the children were gone. The father went to look for them in the backyard and found them both under the water. When the paramedics arrived they found the boy breathing on his own but had to begin CPR on the girl. Both children were airlifted to the hospital.
As the summer goes on sometimes parents tend to start relaxing the pool restrictions. We have gotten maybe a little too comfortable with the kids around the pool because we have been swimming or playing around and near it all summer long and nothing bad has happened. So now we can relax, right? WRONG! This is exactly when something bad happens. Children are always waiting for the one moment mom and dad turn their heads. They can’t help it they are naturally curious beings. Please, don’t give them the opportunity.
Arizona law requires that a pool be enclosed by a fence, but the law cannot force a parent to close the gate, lock the back door, or keep their eyes on their child. We have to take responsibility to do that.
I have handled a good number of child drowning cases. I promise you, any amount of money that you might get because another person fails to watch your child---is NOT WORTH IT! No one wins in these cases, and always, the lives of families and those responsible are devastated by these accidents. Please don’t be the next one!!
We send our hopes and prayers to these two families for the well being of their children.
**If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to email Chris Zachar directly at Czachar@zacharlaw.com, or visit our website at http://www.ZacharLawFirm.com .
Friday, August 28, 2009
Monday, August 24, 2009
Man Dies in a single-vehicle accident on I-10
It occurred on I-10 near 7th avenue around 4 a.m.on Thursday the 13th. According to DPS the victim’s truck hit the crash barriers near the tunnel, causing the driver to be ejected from the truck. Shortly after the victim was ejected a passing vehicle struck the victim. We do not know what injuries caused the victim’s death and if those injuries occurred before the victim was struck by the vehicle or after.
The victim in this incident was not wearing a seatbelt. Had he been wearing a seatbelt, his chances for survival would have improved significantly. Indeed, statistics confirm that the safest place to be in any accident is in the vehicle. It goes without saying---but I guess that I have to keep saying it----that your chances of remaining in the vehicle are MUCH HIGHER if you wear your seatbelt!
Why do some people continue to strongly reject wearing a seatbelt? Honestly, I do not understand it. Maybe some people don’t understand that they can be ejected from their car even if it does not rollover. Maybe if people knew the kind of injuries they could sustain even when they are not ejected from their vehicle. I have a very good friend, who seems for the most part to have a good deal of common sense, regardless. However, every time we are in a vehicle together, I have to tell him to PUT ON HIS SEATBELT! Despite the law, despite the statistics, despite the common sense, he continues to believe that he is protected or infallible while simply in his vehicle. I don’t get it.
Maybe he thinks that, because he is not going to cause an accident, then he does not need to worry so much. However, did you know that when you are in a crash and not wearing a seatbelt, even where the other driver is at fault, that a judge or a jury can decline to award you monies for your medical bills and injuries that can be proven to have resulted from a lack of seatbelt use? The law in Arizona places a responsibility upon all vehicle occupants to use common sense when in the vehicle. Lack of seatbelt use may be deemed later a lack of common sense, and the judge/jury can simply find YOU at fault for your own injuries, despite the fact that you did nothing to cause the accident.
Drive safely, wear a seatbelt and ask everyone in your vehicle to do so as well!
**If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to email Chris Zachar directly at Czachar@zacharlaw.com, or visit our website at http://www.ZacharLawFirm.com .
The victim in this incident was not wearing a seatbelt. Had he been wearing a seatbelt, his chances for survival would have improved significantly. Indeed, statistics confirm that the safest place to be in any accident is in the vehicle. It goes without saying---but I guess that I have to keep saying it----that your chances of remaining in the vehicle are MUCH HIGHER if you wear your seatbelt!
Why do some people continue to strongly reject wearing a seatbelt? Honestly, I do not understand it. Maybe some people don’t understand that they can be ejected from their car even if it does not rollover. Maybe if people knew the kind of injuries they could sustain even when they are not ejected from their vehicle. I have a very good friend, who seems for the most part to have a good deal of common sense, regardless. However, every time we are in a vehicle together, I have to tell him to PUT ON HIS SEATBELT! Despite the law, despite the statistics, despite the common sense, he continues to believe that he is protected or infallible while simply in his vehicle. I don’t get it.
Maybe he thinks that, because he is not going to cause an accident, then he does not need to worry so much. However, did you know that when you are in a crash and not wearing a seatbelt, even where the other driver is at fault, that a judge or a jury can decline to award you monies for your medical bills and injuries that can be proven to have resulted from a lack of seatbelt use? The law in Arizona places a responsibility upon all vehicle occupants to use common sense when in the vehicle. Lack of seatbelt use may be deemed later a lack of common sense, and the judge/jury can simply find YOU at fault for your own injuries, despite the fact that you did nothing to cause the accident.
Drive safely, wear a seatbelt and ask everyone in your vehicle to do so as well!
**If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to email Chris Zachar directly at Czachar@zacharlaw.com, or visit our website at http://www.ZacharLawFirm.com .
Friday, August 21, 2009
Text Messaging While Driving Poses Extreme Danger
I have just watched a very real yet very disturbing video. This video was created to show the dangers of texting while driving. It is my opinion that EVERY driver with a cell phone should watch this video. Please watch this video at http://www.engadget.com/tag/textingwhiledriving/
Thirteen (13) states plus the District of Columbia have now banned text messaging while driving. The Arizona senate rejected a bill to prohibit text messaging statewide while driving earlier this year. Phoenix was the first city to ever do so back on September 24, 2007, but the rest of Arizona cities have failed to follow suit. Unfortunately, one Phoenix police officer has come out and stated that Phoenix’s current text messaging ban is “unenforceable” due to the way it is written. Apparently, police officers are not able to demand that a driver relinquish their cell phone even though the officer may have seen them texting prior to an accident. Because of this, it is very hard to prove a person was text messaging.
Due to the fact that text messaging is a much newer technology than seatbelts or helmets, I can understand that we have to play catch up in the regulations area. However, I would like to believe that we Arizonans have some common sense—at least the amount it takes to see a major danger without it actually blinking in neon lights. But, for those of you who need “blinking neon lights”, please watch the video. It will be difficult for some to watch, however, hopefully, some just may get the jolt they need to truly understand the danger in this simple act.
I dare people to watch this video and then tell me that text messaging while driving is not dangerous. I read one statistic that stated that each year, 21% of fatal car crashes involving teenagers between the ages of 16 and 19 were the result of cell phone usage. This result has been expected to grow as much as 4% every year. Recently, an Amtrak train crashed in California, killing 25 people and injuring another 135, 40 of whom were in critical condition. Evidence found afterward showed that the train operator had sent a text message less than a minute before the crash. He failed to see a signal that would have cautioned him to slow the train.
A study conducted by the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute studied the behavior of truck drivers, and covered more than 6 million miles of road. As part of the study, the researchers installed cameras inside the driver’s vehicles, and evaluated a number of points, including the movement of the driver’s eyes as they performed various activities, like talking on the cell phone, reaching for an object and text messaging. The results show that the greatest danger came from the tasks that took people’s eyes off the road for the longest period of time.
Text messaging has the highest distraction rates of the four tasks compared to non-distracted driving. The risk of a crash or a near crash is 23.2 times as high as with a driver who is not distracted. The data from the study shows that drivers who were text messaging had their attention taken away from the road for an average of 4.6 seconds. That might not seem like much, but according to the study, 4.6 seconds is enough time to drive a vehicle the length of a football field at 55 mph.
In the case of a truck driver reaching for a cell phone, the risk of an accident was 6.7 times as high as for a non-distracted driver. In the case of a truck driver carrying on a cell phone conversation while driving, the risk of an accident or near accident was 1.3 times as high as for a non-distracted driver. In the case of a truck driver dialing a cell phone, the risk of a crash or near crash was 5.9 times as high as for a non-distracted driver.
I have to admit I myself have texted while driving, but after watching the above video; I am going to try to NEVER text again while I am driving. In fact, I have given my wife express permission to take my phone away from me if she sees me even thinking about such.
The seatbelt was invented in the 1880’s and the first patent for a motorcycle helmet appeared in 1953. The first seatbelt laws did not begin to appear until the mid to late 1980’s and mandatory helmet laws began to appear in 1966. Most states have gone back and forth over the last 34 years, repealing and reinstating and repealing these laws.
In comparison, text messaging was invented in the late 1980’s. How long do you think is it going to take us to enact statewide bans on text messaging in every state?
Regardless of whether or not we need a text messaging ban or if ours is enforceable, I am certain most of us have enough common sense, especially after seeing videos like the one above: http://www.engadget.com/tag/textingwhiledriving/ to try to never do it again.
Please watch the video. Please reset your priorities to make it a priority not to do so while we are driving. If you still continue to text after doing so, God help you (as well as the rest of us) when you are on the road.
**If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to email Chris Zachar directly at Czachar@zacharlaw.com, or visit our website at http://www.ZacharLawFirm.com .
Thirteen (13) states plus the District of Columbia have now banned text messaging while driving. The Arizona senate rejected a bill to prohibit text messaging statewide while driving earlier this year. Phoenix was the first city to ever do so back on September 24, 2007, but the rest of Arizona cities have failed to follow suit. Unfortunately, one Phoenix police officer has come out and stated that Phoenix’s current text messaging ban is “unenforceable” due to the way it is written. Apparently, police officers are not able to demand that a driver relinquish their cell phone even though the officer may have seen them texting prior to an accident. Because of this, it is very hard to prove a person was text messaging.
Due to the fact that text messaging is a much newer technology than seatbelts or helmets, I can understand that we have to play catch up in the regulations area. However, I would like to believe that we Arizonans have some common sense—at least the amount it takes to see a major danger without it actually blinking in neon lights. But, for those of you who need “blinking neon lights”, please watch the video. It will be difficult for some to watch, however, hopefully, some just may get the jolt they need to truly understand the danger in this simple act.
I dare people to watch this video and then tell me that text messaging while driving is not dangerous. I read one statistic that stated that each year, 21% of fatal car crashes involving teenagers between the ages of 16 and 19 were the result of cell phone usage. This result has been expected to grow as much as 4% every year. Recently, an Amtrak train crashed in California, killing 25 people and injuring another 135, 40 of whom were in critical condition. Evidence found afterward showed that the train operator had sent a text message less than a minute before the crash. He failed to see a signal that would have cautioned him to slow the train.
A study conducted by the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute studied the behavior of truck drivers, and covered more than 6 million miles of road. As part of the study, the researchers installed cameras inside the driver’s vehicles, and evaluated a number of points, including the movement of the driver’s eyes as they performed various activities, like talking on the cell phone, reaching for an object and text messaging. The results show that the greatest danger came from the tasks that took people’s eyes off the road for the longest period of time.
Text messaging has the highest distraction rates of the four tasks compared to non-distracted driving. The risk of a crash or a near crash is 23.2 times as high as with a driver who is not distracted. The data from the study shows that drivers who were text messaging had their attention taken away from the road for an average of 4.6 seconds. That might not seem like much, but according to the study, 4.6 seconds is enough time to drive a vehicle the length of a football field at 55 mph.
In the case of a truck driver reaching for a cell phone, the risk of an accident was 6.7 times as high as for a non-distracted driver. In the case of a truck driver carrying on a cell phone conversation while driving, the risk of an accident or near accident was 1.3 times as high as for a non-distracted driver. In the case of a truck driver dialing a cell phone, the risk of a crash or near crash was 5.9 times as high as for a non-distracted driver.
I have to admit I myself have texted while driving, but after watching the above video; I am going to try to NEVER text again while I am driving. In fact, I have given my wife express permission to take my phone away from me if she sees me even thinking about such.
The seatbelt was invented in the 1880’s and the first patent for a motorcycle helmet appeared in 1953. The first seatbelt laws did not begin to appear until the mid to late 1980’s and mandatory helmet laws began to appear in 1966. Most states have gone back and forth over the last 34 years, repealing and reinstating and repealing these laws.
In comparison, text messaging was invented in the late 1980’s. How long do you think is it going to take us to enact statewide bans on text messaging in every state?
Regardless of whether or not we need a text messaging ban or if ours is enforceable, I am certain most of us have enough common sense, especially after seeing videos like the one above: http://www.engadget.com/tag/textingwhiledriving/ to try to never do it again.
Please watch the video. Please reset your priorities to make it a priority not to do so while we are driving. If you still continue to text after doing so, God help you (as well as the rest of us) when you are on the road.
**If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to email Chris Zachar directly at Czachar@zacharlaw.com, or visit our website at http://www.ZacharLawFirm.com .
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Man Rescued from 30 Foot Hole in NYC Sidewalk
A man had to be rescued by firefighters Saturday after he fell 30 feet down a hole in a New York City sidewalk. Vincent Riggio stepped outside to smoke a cigar and apparently stepped on a corroded metal plate that was in place to provide reinforcement to the doors of a sidewalk cellar. He fell approximately 30 feet, and had to be hoisted out of the hole by the fire department. Riggio was treated at a hospital for minor cuts and bruises sustained in the fall.
Does Mr. Riggio have a claim? Simply being injured while on another person's property does not make that person or property owner automatically liable for your injuries (as most people think). You must prove negligence, meaning that the owner or management failed to provide or maintain a safe premises, created hazardous conditions on the property and/or failed to eliminate known or discoverable hazards.
I have handled many “premises liability” cases. Each and every one is different in character and circumstance. It certainly is interesting however to learn that premises liability claims (trips, slips, etc..) are the most common personal injury claim filed against the city of New York.
In Arizona, perhaps the most common call that we receive, outside of motor vehicle collision cases, are premises liability claims, namely, people who call because they were injured in a trip or slip in a store. We take information and evaluate the cases, but much more often than not decline representation for what we perceive as being in a position of being unable to prove the case. In Arizona, the person bringing the claim has the burden of proving that he/she has a valid claim under Arizona law. In premises liability cases, you have to prove the store was negligent. You have to prove that the store actually knew or should have known of the hazard BEFORE you tripped or slipped. Simply proving there was water on the floor does not make the store liable for your injuries.
Regardless of the circumstances, if you or a friend has sustained an injury as a result of a trip, slip or other circumstance on another’s property, please consult an experienced personal injury attorney regarding your case and your rights. Some businesses will carry insurance coverage that will pay up to a stated sum for your medical bills, regardless of fault. Either way, your case should be evaluated by an attorney experienced in these matters, so that you better understand your rights both now and in the future.
Does Mr. Riggio have a claim? Simply being injured while on another person's property does not make that person or property owner automatically liable for your injuries (as most people think). You must prove negligence, meaning that the owner or management failed to provide or maintain a safe premises, created hazardous conditions on the property and/or failed to eliminate known or discoverable hazards.
I have handled many “premises liability” cases. Each and every one is different in character and circumstance. It certainly is interesting however to learn that premises liability claims (trips, slips, etc..) are the most common personal injury claim filed against the city of New York.
In Arizona, perhaps the most common call that we receive, outside of motor vehicle collision cases, are premises liability claims, namely, people who call because they were injured in a trip or slip in a store. We take information and evaluate the cases, but much more often than not decline representation for what we perceive as being in a position of being unable to prove the case. In Arizona, the person bringing the claim has the burden of proving that he/she has a valid claim under Arizona law. In premises liability cases, you have to prove the store was negligent. You have to prove that the store actually knew or should have known of the hazard BEFORE you tripped or slipped. Simply proving there was water on the floor does not make the store liable for your injuries.
Regardless of the circumstances, if you or a friend has sustained an injury as a result of a trip, slip or other circumstance on another’s property, please consult an experienced personal injury attorney regarding your case and your rights. Some businesses will carry insurance coverage that will pay up to a stated sum for your medical bills, regardless of fault. Either way, your case should be evaluated by an attorney experienced in these matters, so that you better understand your rights both now and in the future.
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Empty Houses But Full Roads
Now that our kids are back in school, our homes are empty houses but the roadways are much, much busier in the mornings and afternoons. Not only are there more people on the roads dropping off and picking up their children from school, but there are more school busses and more pedestrians.
Of course we have to be more cautious on the road when there is more congestion, but now we must remember the amount of children that are the cause of this congestion. Not only do we have the new 16-year-old drivers on their way to school to contend with but we also have the 10-year-old bike riders and 6-year-olds getting off the bus. We have to be ready for the child to pop out from in front of a bus or to ride their bike into the road where there is no crosswalk. We have to be ready when we get in our automobiles in the morning to be completely engaged with the driving process. No more cell phones, make-up applications, or business reports to read. Eyes and ears on the road!
Also, please do not overlook the school parking lot. Most schools have very particular drop-off and pick-up procedures and it is vital to follow these procedures if you want to avoid hurting a child (much less make it to work on time in the morning). One person going against the flow can create havoc in a school parking lot at 2:30 in the afternoon. This can make it very easy to lose sight of tiny people looking for their parents’ car. Remember, watching for cars is probably the last thing on the mind of a young child just let out of class, so as adults we have to take this responsibility upon ourselves.
We constantly hear about some tragic accident involving a school age child---I can’t truly know what it is to be that parent. Even though I have represented many clients whose children were hurt and or killed in car pedestrian accidents, because I have never been in that position myself, I don’t want to know. Likewise, I surely don’t want to be in the other position as well---being the one who hit and injured a child. As I have said before and will keep saying, no matter who is determined to be at fault----No One “Wins” when this occurs!
School is back in session. Our children are out and about. Let’s all take a deep breath and greet the school year with a hearty welcome, but also, a careful caution. We wish everyone a very safe school year!
**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.ZacharLawFirm.com .
***Photo Courtesy of FreeFoto.com
Friday, July 31, 2009
Arizona Trucking Accident Claims One
On Friday morning, a semi-truck crashed on I-10 near Picacho Peak and burst into flames. The driver was killed and the passenger suffered non-life-threatening injuries.
The victims in this accident were a husband/wife driving team who had been driving together for about 10 years. Shari Wood Linder was driving at the time of the accident; her husband, Ricky Keith Linder, was in the sleeping compartment of the truck. They were driving a semi that was hauling two trailers. Shari was driving eastbound and for some reason veered off the road causing the semi to hit a cement barrier. The semi rolled over and exploded. Overhead power lines also caught fire from the explosion.
According to officials, the explosion resulted from the contents of the trailers, which contained flammable automotive products and cleaning products. A Hazmat team was dispatched for containment and cleanup.
The accident remains under investigation.
In the US, one in every eight traffic deaths results from a collision with a large truck. In 2007 alone, 101,000 injuries resulted from tractor-trailer accidents. Common factors in these accidents are truck driver under-qualifications, speeding to meet time schedules, and the leading error, driver fatigue.
In Arizona, there are a few select people who can make a claim for the death of another. A parent, a spouse and a child are the only classes of people who are allowed to bring these claims. Now, assuming that the Picacho Peak collision was the result of driving error by Mrs. Linder, the law gets a bit tricky here. Could the husband bring a claim against his wife, for her death? He could most certainly bring a claim against her (the claim would actually be brought against her “estate”) for his own injuries and damages. The liability insurance on the truck would provide for any payments to be made for these claims.
Depending on what the investigation shows, there are other possibilities as well. Suppose that another vehicle caused Mrs. Linder to veer and lose control? Suppose also that this could be somehow proven, but the identity of the other driver could not be ascertained. What then? If the Linders had uninsured motorist coverage on their truck, this could provide Mr. Linder a recovery for the death of Mrs. Linder. For the very few reasons mentioned, it really is imperative that people in this situation get an experienced personal injury/trucking injury attorney involved as early as possible. A thorough and early investigation, to find and preserve evidence, can be crucial to the outcome of these claims.
We send our condolences to the entire Linder (and extended) family.
The victims in this accident were a husband/wife driving team who had been driving together for about 10 years. Shari Wood Linder was driving at the time of the accident; her husband, Ricky Keith Linder, was in the sleeping compartment of the truck. They were driving a semi that was hauling two trailers. Shari was driving eastbound and for some reason veered off the road causing the semi to hit a cement barrier. The semi rolled over and exploded. Overhead power lines also caught fire from the explosion.
According to officials, the explosion resulted from the contents of the trailers, which contained flammable automotive products and cleaning products. A Hazmat team was dispatched for containment and cleanup.
The accident remains under investigation.
In the US, one in every eight traffic deaths results from a collision with a large truck. In 2007 alone, 101,000 injuries resulted from tractor-trailer accidents. Common factors in these accidents are truck driver under-qualifications, speeding to meet time schedules, and the leading error, driver fatigue.
In Arizona, there are a few select people who can make a claim for the death of another. A parent, a spouse and a child are the only classes of people who are allowed to bring these claims. Now, assuming that the Picacho Peak collision was the result of driving error by Mrs. Linder, the law gets a bit tricky here. Could the husband bring a claim against his wife, for her death? He could most certainly bring a claim against her (the claim would actually be brought against her “estate”) for his own injuries and damages. The liability insurance on the truck would provide for any payments to be made for these claims.
Depending on what the investigation shows, there are other possibilities as well. Suppose that another vehicle caused Mrs. Linder to veer and lose control? Suppose also that this could be somehow proven, but the identity of the other driver could not be ascertained. What then? If the Linders had uninsured motorist coverage on their truck, this could provide Mr. Linder a recovery for the death of Mrs. Linder. For the very few reasons mentioned, it really is imperative that people in this situation get an experienced personal injury/trucking injury attorney involved as early as possible. A thorough and early investigation, to find and preserve evidence, can be crucial to the outcome of these claims.
We send our condolences to the entire Linder (and extended) family.
Sunday, July 26, 2009
Motorcyclist Hit by Truck on US 60
I cover news stories involving motorcycle accidents a lot, primarily because I handle many of these cases. Another motorcycle accident occurred Monday morning, which only highlights a theme that I continually stress. It concerns the type and amount of damage that a vehicle can do to a motorcyclist, regardless of speed, impact, or a million other factors.
In this instance, a motorcyclist was struck and injured by a truck on U.S.60. The truck driver swerved into the far left lane to attempt to avoid slowing traffic, and clipped the motorcycle, causing the rider to hit the ground. The truck then rolled and slid all the way across traffic to the far right lane. The motorcyclist’s injuries were quite severe.
The motorcyclist did everything required of him for safety. He was wearing protective gear and a helmet, maintaining a safe following distance, etc… The details of this accident are why I constantly address this topic. The vehicles we drive are dangerous and heavy machinery, and need to be handled as such. Motorcycles and small economy cars are not going away (especially given the current economy and fuel prices). I truly believe that we need to change our driving habits to make allowances for these types of vehicles. They are small and common----we must keep in mind all types of vehicles when we are on the public roads.
In this instance, it appears that the truck driver was not paying attention to traffic in front of him. Then, he made a bad situation much worse by recklessly veering into the adjacent lane without having any idea what was there. In Arizona, we have a defense that is called the “Sudden Emergency” defense. What it means is that if you are driving down the roadway, and encounter a ‘sudden emergency’, the law may excuse your conduct that follows due to being forced into a split-second decision.
In this instance, it does not seem that the “Sudden Emergency” doctrine would apply. A driver cannot create a ‘sudden emergency’ on their own. In this instance, the truck driver’s inattention appears to have resulted in a poor decision that resulted in serious injuries to the motorcycle rider. Sad.
Of course, liability will still have to be assessed, and the nature and extent of damages determined. This is one of the many reasons why we need the legal system that we have.
**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
In this instance, a motorcyclist was struck and injured by a truck on U.S.60. The truck driver swerved into the far left lane to attempt to avoid slowing traffic, and clipped the motorcycle, causing the rider to hit the ground. The truck then rolled and slid all the way across traffic to the far right lane. The motorcyclist’s injuries were quite severe.
The motorcyclist did everything required of him for safety. He was wearing protective gear and a helmet, maintaining a safe following distance, etc… The details of this accident are why I constantly address this topic. The vehicles we drive are dangerous and heavy machinery, and need to be handled as such. Motorcycles and small economy cars are not going away (especially given the current economy and fuel prices). I truly believe that we need to change our driving habits to make allowances for these types of vehicles. They are small and common----we must keep in mind all types of vehicles when we are on the public roads.
In this instance, it appears that the truck driver was not paying attention to traffic in front of him. Then, he made a bad situation much worse by recklessly veering into the adjacent lane without having any idea what was there. In Arizona, we have a defense that is called the “Sudden Emergency” defense. What it means is that if you are driving down the roadway, and encounter a ‘sudden emergency’, the law may excuse your conduct that follows due to being forced into a split-second decision.
In this instance, it does not seem that the “Sudden Emergency” doctrine would apply. A driver cannot create a ‘sudden emergency’ on their own. In this instance, the truck driver’s inattention appears to have resulted in a poor decision that resulted in serious injuries to the motorcycle rider. Sad.
Of course, liability will still have to be assessed, and the nature and extent of damages determined. This is one of the many reasons why we need the legal system that we have.
**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)
