In the world of personal injury law, the determination of fault is a crucial factor that affects the course of legal proceedings. In Arizona, the legality surrounding fault is governed by the doctrine of comparative negligence.
This legality is designed to bring fairness to personal injury cases. However, the details are nuanced and complex and may require an experienced attorney such as Jeff GOULD Law, the Attorney In YOUR Corner.
Table of Contents
Understanding Comparative Negligence
Arizona follows a system of comparative negligence. What this means is that in a personal injury case, each party involved is assigned a certain percentage of fault based on their contribution of fault – liability for the incident. It is important to note that even if a party is found to be primarily at fault, they can still pursue a damages claim, but only with a reduced award reflecting their degree of responsibility.
Determining Fault
The determination of fault in Arizona’s legal system works through an examination of the facts and circumstances surrounding the accident. This process often involves collecting evidence, witness testimonies, expert opinions, and other relevant information. Unlike some states, Arizona places no cap on the percentage of fault a plaintiff can have. Even if, in this scenario, the plaintiff is determined to be 99% responsible, they still have the right to pursue the remaining 1%.
Even with evidence and witnesses, your odds of being fairly compensated may be better supported through experienced representation. It is highly recommended that you hire an attorney with experience in personal injury cases.
Compensation is Impacted by Liability Assessment
Once fault-liability assessment percentages are determined, the allocation of compensation follows. Arizona’s comparative negligence laws state that the compensation awarded to the plaintiff shall be reduced by their percentage of fault.
For example, if a plaintiff is awarded $100,000 in damages but the plaintiff is found to be 20% at fault, their final compensation would be reduced by 20% down to $80,000. This reflects that 80% of the fault is attributed to the other party.
This system underscores the extreme importance of skilled legal representation in personal injury cases. Jeff GOULD Law can navigate the complexities of comparative negligence, advocating for a fair and accurate determination of fault that maximizes the compensation available to the injured party.
Real-World Application
To best illustrate the practical implications of Arizona’s comparative negligence laws, consider a scenario involving a car accident. Driver A failed to signal while changing lanes and collided with Driver B, who was texting while driving at the time of the incident. In this case, a court may find Driver A 70% at fault for the failure to signal, while Driver B is found 30% at fault for distracted driving.
If total damages in this scenario were determined to be $50,000, Driver A, who is predominantly at fault, could still seek financial compensation. Either driver could pursue damages and receive a reasonable and fair sum of money.
The Importance of Legal Counsel
Given the complexities and varied facts of each negligence case, a skilled attorney can meticulously investigate the circumstances surrounding the accident, gather compelling evidence, and present a solid case to establish a proper liability assessment and fair allocation of fault.
At Jeff GOULD Law, we seek maximum compensation for damages and get real results for real people. Whether you’ve been in a car accident, a hit and run, or been bitten by a dog, you need an aggressive and experienced personal injury attorney. No personal injury case is too big or too small for Jeff GOULD, the Attorney In YOUR Corner! Have you been the victim of someone else’s negligence? Then…
Don’t DELAY: Call Jeff GOULD Law, the Attorney In YOUR Corner – TODAY!
DISCLAIMER: The information on this blog/site is not intended to be legal advice. It is for general informational use only. You should consult an attorney for advice regarding your situation. Further, this information does not create an attorney-client relationship.