Comparative Negligence Determines Fault in an Accident

Arizona uses “comparative negligence” to assess who was at fault in an accident. The rule applies when an accident involves two or more responsible parties. This means that the amount of damages that a party is entitled to is determined by the percentage of fault that party carries.

Statute of Limitations in Arizona

Arizona law also has a statute of limitations. It establishes how long a person has to file a personal injury claim following the accident. Determining fault in an accident can be complex and often requires the expertise of a skilled personal injury attorney. Consult with a personal injury attorney who can advise you on your rights and guide you through the legal process.

General Rules in Proving Fault in an Accident

Here are the rules for proving fault in personal injury accidents:

• The plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant had a legal duty of care to act reasonably and prevent causing harm. One example is the obligation to observe traffic laws.
• The plaintiff must show that the defendant breached their duty of care by acting in an unreasonable manner. A driver who runs a red light or speeds violates their duty of care.
• The plaintiff must show that the defendant’s breach of duty directly caused their injuries. This can be a complex issue in cases where there are multiple causes of an accident.
• The plaintiff has to prove that they were harmed as a result of the defendant’s actions. This can include medical expenses, lost wages, and pain and suffering.

Collect as much evidence as you can, such as witness accounts, police reports, and medical records. These will help your personal injury lawyer build a stronger case for you.

Proving Negligence and “Duty of Care”

Negligence is the failure to exercise reasonable care that results in harm or injury to another person. To prove negligence in a personal injury case, the plaintiff must show that:

• The defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of care to act in a reasonable manner to avoid causing harm.
• The defendant breached that duty of care by acting unreasonably or failing to act when they should have.
• The plaintiff suffered damages because of the defendant’s breach of duty.

The plaintiff must show that the defendant had a legal obligation to act in a certain way to prevent harm to others. Drivers have a duty to obey traffic laws and operate their vehicles safely. Property owners have a duty to keep their premises reasonably safe for visitors.

Due to the defendant’s violation of duty of care, he or she may be held accountable for any losses or injuries. The plaintiff’s own actions or negligence may also be considered when determining fault and damages. The percentage of fault allocated to them could reduce their damages award.

In Arizona’s comparative negligence rule, it guarantees that fault is distributed fairly in cases involving personal injuries. Consult with an experienced personal injury attorney who can provide guidance and advocacy.