Recent Blog Posts in August 2009

“Although mass transit tends to be quite safe, sometimes accidents occur involving buses. Bringing a claim arising from a bus accident can be complicated by issues such as governmental immunity, determination of fault, and fraud.

Bus Accidents

Due to the size and weight of the typical bus, low speed accidents often have little impact on a bus or its passengers, but can have a serious impact on a passenger vehicle which collides with a bus.

When the impact is great enough to cause injury to the passengers on a bus, as the passengers are typically unrestrained, there can often be multiple injuries. If the bus rolls, goes off the road, or catches on fire, injuries to passengers can be very serious.

As previously suggested, where a vehicle is hit by a bus, that vehicle and its passengers can suffer very serious injury.

Governmental Immunity

As buses are often operated by a governmental authority, such as a municipality or a public school, even when the bus driver is at fault there may be an attempt to avoid compensating injured persons on the basis of governmental immunity. As governmental immunity laws vary significantly by state, and can be tricky to analyze, it is a good idea to have any governmental immunity issues evaluated by a lawyer in the jurisdiction where the bus accident occurred.

School Bus Accidents

Many serious injuries associated with school buses occur during passenger boarding and disembarking, for example when passing motorists disregard the signals on the school bus, children cross the street in an unsafe manner, or when the bus driver loses track of a child and either turns off the signals prematurely or strikes the child with the school bus. Serious injuries also occur in collisions, including highway accidents or where school buses roll or go off of the roadway.

Modern school buses are designed to incorporate a significant degree of passive restraint into the seat design - that is, the seats are constructed to try to minimize injury either from children being ejected from their seat or from collision with the seat in front of them. While there has been some debate over the use of seat belts on school buses, the consensus to date is to try to improve the safety through better design. Trying to enforce a seat belt rule on a bus full of children or teenagers can be unrealistic for a school bus driver. In many cases, retrofitting buses with seat belts could increase the danger of injury, as the seats may not be adequately secured to the floor to withstand the momentum that would result in an accident if the students wore seat-belts - it is bad enough for kids to be ejected from their seats in an accident, but potentially much worse if the seats come loose from the floor.

Where a public school bus driver causes an accident, there may be an attempt by the school board to claim governmental immunity in relation to the injuries that result.

Fifteen Passenger Vans

Although not truly “buses”, fifteen passenger vans are used in a similar manner by many church groups, private schools, and similar organizations. It is often asserted that fifteen passenger vans are unsafe, due to a high chance of rollover in the event of a collision. Thus, following an accident, the passengers have a potential product liability claim in addition to any claims of negligent driving conduct.

Problems With Fraud

In larger municipalities, there has historically been a problem with people boarding buses after an accident has occurred, then claiming to have been injured while riding the bus at the time of the accident. Some cities have even staged bus accident scenes, making it appear that a collision had occurred, to catch people who attempt this type of fraud. Also, even within the context of a real accident, sometimes bus passengers are known to exaggerate their injuries or to attribute a pre-existing condition to the accident. This type of fraud and misrepresentation can make it more difficult for people who actually suffer injury to establish their claims.”

If you or a loved one suffers from severe injuries or death from a car or bicycle accident, the Phoenix personal injury lawyers of Phillips and Lyon will help you get the money you deserve. Contact us now.

Posted By: Phoenix Accident Lawyers, Phillips and Lyon

“When cars collide with pedestrians, there is high potential for serious injury.

Drivers should take appropriate care in crowded areas or school zones, for the potential that a pedestrian will enter the roadway.

Pedestrians should follow the advice that we attempt to ingrain into the youngest of children - look both ways before attempting to cross the street.

Pedestrian Error

Pedestrians have a great capacity to avoid being struck by cars, as it is very rare for collisions to occur outside of the roadway. When pedestrians exercise due caution before entering a road, the chances of being struck by a car are very low. The chances of accident go up significantly in the following contexts:

Ignoring Traffic Controls - Although many are imperfect, pedestrian traffic controls tend to be timed such that when the signal switches from “walk” to “don’t walk”, a pedestrian no longer has time to safely cross the roadway. At such a time, pedestrians in the road should continue to cross, but pedestrians on the corner should wait for the next light. Similarly, if there are no pedestrian control devices, no pedestrians should enter a roadway once a traffic light controlling the intersection turns yellow. Whenever possible, cross in a crosswalk and wait for a green light.

Jaywalking - When pedestrians choose to cross the street in inappropriate or unexpected locations, they put themselves at greater risk of injury. It is best to cross in a designated crosswalk or at an intersection.

The “Darting” Child - Children sometimes “dart” into the roadway with little regard for traffic, often in pursuit of a pet, toy, or another child. Motorists should take particular care when they see children at play in a neighborhood, or when they pass a park, school, or other area which is posted as having children present.

The Parent In Pursuit - When children run into a roadway, their parent’s first thought may be to rescue the child, and they may run into the road in complete disregard of oncoming traffic.

Walking On A Limited Access Highway - Pedestrian traffic on limited access highways is extremely dangerous. Highway traffic moves at high speeds, and drivers will not be expecting pedestrians. When a roadway is marked “No Pedestrians”, respect that prohibition. If your vehicle breaks down on a limited access highway, and you get out to perform maintenance or to try to walk somewhere for help, you should take great care not to put yourself in danger. Attempting to cross a highway on foot is exceptionally dangerous.

Driver Error

Common driver errors or driving misconduct which contributes to car-pedestrian accidents include:

Disregarding a Crosswalk - Drivers who don’t pay attention to crosswalks, whether at intersections or at other points in the roadway, create a significant risk of accident. Drivers should exercise appropriate care that pedestrians are not crossing the road before passing through a designated crosswalk.

Disregarding a Traffic Control Device - When drivers ignore traffic controls, particularly those which specifically relate to pedestrian traffic, they significantly increase the chances of an accident.

Disregarding a Pedestrian Already Crossing the Roadway - When a pedestrian in the roadway ahead of a car is obviously crossing the road, or has entered the driver’s lane while in the process of crossing the road, drivers should exercise appropriate caution and should yield as necessary to avoid accident.

Driving While Intoxicated - Drunk drivers pose a high risk of injury to pedestrians, and there are many notorious cases where drunk drivers have caused accidents, striking pedestrians on sidewalks.

Passing a School Bus - When drivers overlook or ignore the red, flashing overhead lights on a school bus, their passing of a school bus creates a high risk of injury to children who may be disembarking from the bus.

Potential for Serious Injury

When a pedestrian is struck by several thousand pounds of metal and glass, even a low-speed collision carries a high potential for serious or catastrophic injury, or even death. Parents should emphasize pedestrian safety rules with their children, and should set a good example by following those safety rules themselves.”

If you or a loved one suffers from severe injuries or death from a car and pedestrian accident, the Phoenix personal injury lawyers of Phillips and Lyon will help you get the money you deserve. Contact us now.

Posted By: Phoenix Accident Lawyers, Phillips and Lyon

“In 2008, there were 39,991 DUI arrests in Arizona; making this offense responsible for the highest number of arrests or 11.9% of total arrests. 2008 recorded 6,757 alcohol-related vehicle crashes in the state and 324 people killed. Drinking drivers were involved in 59.26% of all fatalities in the State of Arizona. In Maricopa County alone there were 4,240 alcohol-related crashes, killing 132 and injuring 2,888 people.”

According to the taxi fare finder, there is an initial charge for approximately $2.50 to $3.50 and then a charge for every additional mile after that which tends to range from $1.50 to $2.00. Why take the risk of causing severe injuries or death to a person when you can pay a much smaller fee to begin with? Just take a taxi because you don’t want to be the one included in these statistics and the one who causes death and injuries to a loved ones family members.

If you or a loved one suffers from severe injuries or death caused by a drunk driver, the attorneys at Phillips and Lyon will help you fight for justice. Contact us now.

http://www.crimefreeaz.com/dui/
http://www.taxifarefinder.com/info.php?city=Phoenix

What is considered red light running?
“A violation occurs when a motorist enters an intersection some time after the signal light has turned red. Motorists inadvertently in an intersection when the signal changes to red (waiting to turn left, for example) are not red light runners.”

Red light running is the most common cause of crashes nationwide. In 2007 alone, approximately 900 people were killed and an estimated 153,000 injuries were caused by red light running. Many of these deaths caused by red light runners were either pedestrians or people in the opposing vehicle that were hit and generally the collision were T-bone accidents. Arizona has been known to have some of the worst offenders pertaining to red light running.

“According to the Arizona Department of Transportation, red light running crashes only account for about six percent of all vehicle crashes in Arizona. However, 80 people were killed and nearly 7,500 were injured as a result of red light running. Additionally, Arizona has one of the highest death rates in the country per 100,000 people, according to data collected by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. The institute also reports that Phoenix, Mesa and Tucson are three of the worst offending cities for red light runners.”

To prevent red light running in the state of Arizona, red light cameras were put throughout the cities of Scottsdale, Phoenix, Tempe, Mesa, and Paradise Valley. These red light cameras have proven to decrease intersection accidents and also reduce red light violations. “A study of the same fixed speed-enforcement program in Scottsdale, AZ, found that the speed camera program led to lower speeds, safer drivers, shorter drive times and economic savings. Average speeds were reduced by about 9 mph following the installation of six cameras on the Loop 101 freeway; total crashes were reduced by 44% to 54% and injury crashes decreased by 28% to 48%.”
If you or a loved one suffers from severe injuries or death from a red light running accident, the Phoenix personal injury lawyers of Phillips and Lyon will help you get the money you deserve. Contact us now.

http://www.iihs.org/research/qanda/rlr.html
http://www.speedingticketcentral.com/Arizona-speeding-ticket.html
http://www.stopredlightrunning.com/get_the_facts_speedcamera.html

“The responsibility of a manufacturer or vendor of goods to compensate for injury caused by defective merchandise that it has provided for sale.”

Manufacturers, retailers, distributors and furnishers have a certain responsibility when making products. These companies must follow general standards of health and safety along with making their consumer goods follow these guidelines.

Many times companies take shortcuts, risks and let their responsibilities slip to save a little money. If a company does not follow these guidelines of health and safety and their product results in a personal injury, the company is held liable.

A few examples include defective design of tires, automobiles, and seatbelts. With defectives automobiles and tires, there is a higher risk for auto accidents. A defective seatbelt or airbag could be a huge risk and result in a major products liability case.

If you or a loved one suffers from injuries from a defective product, the Phoenix personal injury lawyers of Phillips and Lyon will help you get the money you deserve. Contact us now.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Product+Liability

Our Goal Is to Keep you Informed!

We will always strive to help our clients make truly informed decisions about their legal matters.  During our representation, we will constantly keep all clients “in the loop”.   At Phillips and Lyon will do our best to solicit client input and feelings about each case’s background and developments.  Clients always have insights and historic knowledge of issues that can help us fine tune our approach.  Listening to clients is very important to us. 

Phillips and Lyon will also explain tactics and strategies we plan to employ so clients understand why we may recommend a particular course of legal action and where we intend the strategy to lead us.  We always appreciate client feedback.
Finally, our approach always includes giving each client the opportunity to ask questions which we will answer right away. 

If you or someone you know has been injured in an accident please contact Phillips and Lyon!

Auto, truck and sport utility vehicle rollover accident unnecessarily kill 10,000 Americans annually.  Another 24,000 suffer severe injuries.

Long suppressed internal documents show that automakers knew as early as 1966 that car and truck roof designs were so weak that occupants could be crushed to death in rollover accidents.  Ford could have fixed this deadly problem for $43.13 per vehicle.  Instead, manufacturers hid the information for years and continued selling dangerous vehicles.

In 2005, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration – despite specific direction from Congress to increase vehicle roof safety – established auto industry sympathetic standards mandating only minimal improvements to existing standards.  The regulations also prevent lawsuits against manufacturers who ignore their own internal safety researchers to bolster their bottom lines

www.newslettersink.com

Wrongful death lawsuit: Parents of boy killed by garage door sue homeowner, manufacturer and installer
By Lauren R Harrison
The family whose 6-year-old son was killed after a garage door closed on him filed a wrongful-death lawsuit Wednesday against the Chicago homeowner and two companies believed to have manufactured and installed the door.

Angela Washington-Sanders and Marshall Sanders sued in Cook County Circuit Court on behalf of their son, Dijion, whose death Saturday was from compressional asphyxia after he was trapped under the garage door, according to the medical examiner’s office. His 9-year-old brother found him fatally injured and alerted their mother after Dijion was playing outside alone, the family said.

The suit names as defendants Darrell Washington, the victim’s uncle who owned the home in the 9200 block of South Saginaw Avenue in the Calumet Heights neighborhood where the accident occurred, as well as Mid-America Door Co. and Sears, Roebuck & Co.

The suit alleged that the garage door wasn’t equipped with a motion sensor and that Washington failed to warn his relatives that it “could unexpectedly close or fall.”

“I’m haunted by this every day, and if I would have known he was under the garage [door], then there’s no way that I wouldn’t have run to him,” his mother said at a news conference. “I keep thinking that he was screaming and calling someone and no one was there to help him.”

Timothy Cavanagh, the family’s attorney, said that since 1992 the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission has required garage door openers to have devices that reverse the door when it comes into contact with a person or object. Cavanagh said he did not know when Washington’s garage door was manufactured or installed.

Sears declined to comment, but a company spokeswoman as well as John Earnest, president of Mid-America Door, expressed sympathy for the family’s loss.

READ entire article: Chicago Tribune

Consumers have the right to sue as a group over advertising they believe misled them into buying products, a divided state Supreme Court ruled Monday in reinstating a massive suit against the tobacco industry. 

The 4-3 decision rejected business arguments that, if accepted, would have virtually prohibited class-action suits for false advertising by requiring proof that every plaintiff - millions of them, in some cases - had seen an allegedly deceptive ad and relied on it to make a purchase. The court majority said that evidence is required only for the single plaintiff or small group that represents the entire class.
“This gives the consumers rights to protect themselves from fraudulent advertising,” said Mark Robinson, a lawyer for the smokers who sued tobacco companies in 1997.

The ruling could make California “the class-action capital of the country,” retorted William Stern, a lawyer for business organizations and a co-author of Proposition 64, a 2004 ballot measure at the heart of the case.