Arizona Personal Injury Blog - Property Owner's Liability (Slip & Fall)

Liability for Failure to Prevent Risks of Criminal Activity

Staff Writer — Mon, 30 Apr 2007 17:02:40 GMT

I read today that a female Circle K clerk in Tucson filed a lawsuit against her employer alleging that the company provided negligent security which allowed a customer to abduct and sexually assault her. According to the newspaper article in the Arizona Daily Star,

Circle K should have known of "criminal dangers" at that store. . . . [T]he company should have staffed at least two employees overnight and equipped the store with appropriate security measures, including an alarm or panic button.
"As a result of defendant Circle K breaching its duties as alleged above, plaintiff was left unreasonably vulnerable to an attack that was both reasonably foreseeable and reasonably preventable," the lawsuit states.

If a plaintiff sues a criminal for causing harm, clearly a jury would likely find the criminal responsible for the conduct causing injury. However, I am curious what you think about lawsuits alleging that a third-party defendant's negligence allowed a criminal act to occur. Do you believe an employer has a responsibility to take precautions to prevent work-place crime? Should a convenience store provide extra safety precautions for female employees working late night shifts? How about other criminal conduct? Does a bar have an obligation to prevent its customers from drinking to excess and driving? Do businesses have an obligation to secure computer systems to minimize risk of identity theft?

All of these scenarios look to hold others accountable for preventing forseeable criminal conduct. Do you believe that our society should hold third party defendants accountable for preventing forseeable risk of harm by other criminals? I believe a company or individual has such an obligation as long as the alleged criminal conduct involves reasonably forseeable behavior and that the failure to take reasonable precautions created an opportunity for a criminal to commit an illegal act. The nature of litigation would likely explore issues such as what industry standards or reasonable security precautions are available to protect individuals from harm and whether the lack of such precautions caused or contributed to the harm. In light of recent criminal tragedies, I'd like to hear your opinions about whether individuals or businesses should be held accountable for failing to take reasonable security precautions resulting in a means and an opportunity to engage in criminal activity. Does holding others accountable encourage society to take safety and security seriously?

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Staff Writer

Legislature to Consider Alcohol Interlock Devices for DUI Offenders

Staff Writer — Sat, 14 Apr 2007 09:00:00 GMT

The Arizona House of Representatives has preliminarily passed a tough DUI bill requiring offenders to place ignition interlock devices on their vehicles which would prevent them from drinking and driving. The legislation apparently has enough support to pass the legislature and will likely go to the Governor's office for signature. The legislation designed to prevent alcohol-related motor vehicle accidents, Senate Bill 1029, first started out as a measure to place even tougher jail penalties on drivers who have blood alcohol concentrations higher than .20. During floor debate, however, the bill was amended to include vehicle ignition interlock requirements on vehicles of all people convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol. According to the amendment sponsor, requiring ignition interlock devices can act as a preventative measure to reduce drunk driving accidents on our roadways.

What do you think about this legislation? By requiring jail time for extreme DUI offenders and requiring ignition interlock devices on offenders' cars, do you think we will see a reduction in alcohol-related car accidents? I fully support any reasonable and cost-effective approaches to reduce the dangers of drunk driving. Arizona has not been successful at reducing alcohol related fatalities. Maybe now is the time to try something new. I am not sure whether increasing jail-time punishment will lower alcohol-related accident rates. However, ignition interlock devices could certainly prevent offenders from repeatedly drinking and acting dangerously. For this reason, I think this legislation presents a good opportunity. I hope the legislature supports it and the Governor signs it. I'd like to hear your thoughts about this bill.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Staff Writer

Civil Justice Remedies for Crime Victims

Staff Writer — Sun, 11 Feb 2007 18:02:08 GMT

We have heard plenty of stories about crime in Arizona. Unfortunately and sadly, crime occurs everyday on our streets, in our offices and in our homes. If you have victimized by criminal conduct, what happens next? Who will provide support and explain what you can expect from our criminal justice system? What resources are available? What remedies are available in the criminal and civil justice system? Fortunately, in Arizona you have some resources available. For example, the Department of Public Safety maintains a web site as a resource for crime victims. This site provides victim information and resources during times of need. The site also contains links to other resources such as the Never Again Foundation. This organization indicates its purpose as follows:

We are lawyers providing free legal representation and education for women, children, and senior victims of domestic violence, sexual assault or elder abuse in civil law suits directly against the abusers. We have won over $170 Million for our clients, and 100% of all collections are given to victims to help rebuild their lives.

Arizona also has constitutional protections to ensure that victims provide input into the criminal justice process once a defendant has been apprehended. Victims have the following rights once a defendant enters into the criminal justice system:

1. To be advised of all victim rights and how to assert them;
2. To information on the availability of crisis intervention, medical and emergency services, information on victim assistance programs and domestic violence resources;
3. To be advised of the date, time and location of the initial appearance or arraignment if a suspect is arrested or cited;
4. To be provided the police report number, if available, and if the case has been submitted to a prosecutor's office, information on how to contact that office;
5. To be notified if the prosecutor declines to file charges, and notice of what charges are filed;
6. To have your home address, and employer's name and address withheld from the defendant and his representatives;
7. To refuse an interview with the defendant and anyone working on the defendant's behalf;
8. To be present at any court proceeding at which the defendant has the right to be present;
9. To name an appropriate support person, who is not a witness, to accompany you to any interview, deposition or court proceeding;
10. To have the Court provide appropriate safeguards to minimize contact between you and the defendant;
11. To be heard at any proceeding concerning release of the accused person, a plea agreement, and the sentencing (with some limitations if the defendant is facing the death penalty);
12. To speak with the presentence investigator before the sentencing, to give a sentencing recommendation, and to read the presentence report when it is available to the defendant;
13. To have the court order restitution, and to receive that restitution promptly;
14. To leave work (if eligible) to attend scheduled legal proceedings (in accordance with A.R.S 13.4439).

In the criminal justice system, victims may be awarded restitution. Victims may also have other civil remedies available to them as well. Against the criminal defendant, the Never Again Foundation provides a laudible resource for victims seeking civil justice directly against the criminal defendant. Victims may also have civil remedies available to them against other parties. The National Crime Victim Bar Association provides a resource for crime victims seeking civil remedies from other parties who may bear some responsibility for allowing a criminal act to occur. This organization provides resources to victims who need expertise in both civil and criminal matters.

The NCVBA provides technical support to attorneys representing crime victims in civil actions, refers crime victims to lawyers in their local area, and works to increase general awareness about the availability
of civil remedies for victims of crime.

Hopefully, you will never need these resources; however, they are available to provide victims with some compassion and understanding during times of need.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Staff Writer

Arizona One of the Deadliest for Victims of Drinking and Driving

Staff Writer — Fri, 01 Dec 2006 09:37:03 GMT

Arizona is near the top of the nation for a topic which, like golf, would have us all feel better if the score were substantially lower. According to the East Valley Tribune, alcohol played a factor in almost half of all fatal automobile crashes last year. A report prepared by an organization known as

End Needless Death on Our Roadways, shows Arizona is 15th in alcohol-related fatal crashes, just behind South Carolina and Illinois.
"Arizona definitely does not like being listed on this," said Michael Hegarty, spokesman for the Arizona Governor's Office of Highway Safety, "but we are taking every measure to decrease our numbers."

These statistics are no doubt troubling in a state which recently allowed bars and nightclubs to remain open an extra hour until two o'clock in the morning. Also, these statistics should serve as a stark reminder to all of us to drive defensively, wear your seatbelt and do not take unnecessary risks; you never know if you will be the next victim of an impaired driver. According to Michael Hegarty,

"No state can be proud of being this high," he said, "especially since alcohol-related crashes are one of the more easily preventable ones."

Reducing these statistics should become a priority for all of us. Drivers should not take irresponsible risks by drinking to the point of impairment and driving. Get a designated driver or take a cab! Police should provide enforcement to catch those drivers who get behind the wheel and place themselves and the public at risk. Likewise, local bars and restaurants can and should play an important enforcement role by training staff to avoid overserving drunk patrons and offering a safe ride home if needed. Bars and restaurants are licensed by the State Liquor Board which allows them to earn a profit from the sale of alcohol. Based on the dangers of drinking and driving, Arizona law prevents these businesses from profiting by overserving alcohol to patrons. If a bar or restaurant overserves liquor to a patron, it should either offer a safe ride home or if rejected, call the police. Like any other businesses, a license to earn a profit requires that businesses earn that profit by acting responsibly.

If all else fails and a family becomes victimized based upon the behavior of an irresponsible drunk driver, organizations such as MADD Arizona provide victim assistance. Actually the MADD organization also provides prevention resources and support to the community in order to eliminate drunk driving altogether. According to the national MADD President,

"The real possibility of eliminating drunk driving in this country is a powerful, even audacious, idea. Yet the tools are now at hand. Using technology, tougher enforcement, stronger laws and grassroots mobilization, the goal of eliminating a primary public health threat that has plagued the United States is within our reach," said Glynn Birch, national president of MADD.

Let us make a commitment to prevent drunk driving as outlined by the MADD national president. Such a commitment must start at the grass roots level, one driver, one business and one law enforcement representative at a time. Making such a commitment will lead to a reduction in alcohol related fatal crashes and will drop Arizona from among the top fifteen states in this sad statistical category.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Staff Writer

Our Thoughts and Prayers Go Out to a Fallen Police Officer

Staff Writer — Tue, 02 May 2006 09:20:40 GMT

Yesterday our state remembered Gilbert Police Officer Rob Targosz who died while on duty this past Saturday working on a DUI enforcement detail. A suspected impaired driver ran a red light and collided with Officer Targosz's motorcycle. The driver and passenger then fled on foot without attempting to help the injured officer. In our line of work, we see lots of tragedy. We can only hope that the tragedy that Officer Tragosz's family and the Gilbert Police Department has had to endure will serve as a reminder to drivers and businesses alike to realize the dangers of excessive drinking and driving. A peace officers memorial next to the Arizona capital contains the names of all officers in Arizona who have died in the line of duty. We salute those brave officers who have sacrificed so much to protect citizens of our state.

Out of the tragic stories which we see far too often, we also see hope and a quest for change. This past weekend, I attended the second annual MADD Arizona "Making a Difference Together" law enforcement appreciation dinner. At this event, MADD recognized more than 500 law enforcement officers from around the state for their dedication and service to our community. This recognition ceremony served to empower both officers and citizens alike to recognize the dangers of impaired driving. Based on the tragic events involving the City of Gilbert Police Department, such events like thse can make a real difference. Our sincere condolences go out to the families of this brave Gilbert Police Officer.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Staff Writer

Look Where You Walk

Staff Writer — Tue, 14 Mar 2006 13:56:41 GMT

In late February, the United States Supreme Court held that a woman who tripped over her mail left on her porch rather than her mailbox can sue the United States Postal Service for personal injuries arising out of her fall. Today, I read an article in the Arizona Daily Star describing this lawsuit and immediately thought about the McDonalds case involving hot coffee spilled in the lap of an elderly lady. This comparison led me to think about another question which I'd like to ask: do you think that people file lawsuits more often today than we did twenty years ago? Let me know your thoughts.

By the way, I have some different thoughts about the McDonalds case. For those who may not recall, the McDonalds case involved an elderly woman who sued McDonalds because she suffered injuries after hot coffee spilled on her lap. I do not want to defend the position taken by either party in the McDonalds case or in any other case; that would not be fair. Instead, I trust our system of justice. I also trust juries and the appellate courts to make the right decisions about what is and is not frivolous. The jury in the McDonalds case heard all the evidence and made its decision based upon its evalutation of this evidence. While news accounts may lead me to think differently about the result, I do not think it fair to substitute my opinions for what the jury considered. The jury heard all evidence about past conduct, past warnings to McDonalds and the extent of injuries that the vicitm sustained and came back with its award. By the way, post trial actions led to a substantial reduction of the jury award. Indeed, rather than using the McDonalds case as evidence of the need for tort reform, I view the McDonalds case as validation of our system of justice and confirmation that it should not change. Now in Maricopa County, generally speaking, juries already view lawsuits with a conservative eye and considerable skepticism. Indeed, today in light of the McDonalds case, while a woman may be able to sue the United States Postal Service for injuries she sustained after falling over her mail, in my humble opinion, juries would not look too favorably on such a lawsuit believing instead that this woman must take personal responsibility for her actions. In some respects, because of the McDonalds case, jurors in Arizona already practice their own form of tort reform. The Association of Trial Lawyers of America has prepared a fact sheet about the McDonalds case. Click here if you are interested in reviewing more details about that interesting product liability case.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Staff Writer

Washington Swing Accident Claims 15 Y.O.

Staff Writer — Mon, 09 Jan 2006 10:40:59 GMT

A colleague in Seattle, Mike Myers, posts news of an unfortunate accident in which a 15 year old boy fell to his death from a rope swing at at a party where there was underage drinking.

Mike notes:

The landowner who allowed the 60 foot rope swing on his or her property may also be liable if the swing constituted a known, dangerous condition.

It is important for land/homeonwners to be aware of potentially dangerous conditions on their property or at their homes.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Staff Writer