Arizona Slip & Fall Laws

My name is Mack Jones. I’m a personal injury attorney emphasizing premises liability here in Phoenix, Arizona. Often times people want to get a copy of the incident report that may have been prepared by the store or the location where they fell. Typically, you’re not entitled to the copy of the incident report unless you signed it. If you signed it, or you were the one that completed it, you’re entitled to a copy. But if it was completed by store personnel, or people at the gas station or wherever, you’re not entitled to a copy of it until you get into litigation. Typically, the stores and other defendants do not want to share that with you because they view it as developing proof to assist them in defending a personal injury claim that you may bring against them. Therefore, if you’ve been injured on premises and sustained a significant personal injury, please contact us in terms of developing the proof necessary to establish your claim, at Jones Raczkowski, PC, (602) 840-8787.

By: Mack Jones

My name’s Mack Jones and I’m a personal injury attorney here in Phoenix, Arizona at Jones, Raczkoski PC. There’s a “catch-22” in premises liability cases. Typically you’ll be asked by an insurance adjuster or defense attorney at some point, did you see what caused you to fall before you fell? There’s only two answers, yes I saw it or no I didn’t. But they’re prepared for either answer. If you say, yes I saw it then their argument is going to be you should have avoided it. If you say, no I didn’t see it, they’re going to say it was right in front of you. There are reasons why people fall even though they saw something and there are reasons people fall even though they didn’t see something because it was not visible. If you have a case like that you need it professionally evaluated by somebody like us, Jones Raczkowski PC. (602) 840-8787.

By: Mack Jones

My name is Mack Jones and I’m a personal injury attorney at Jones Raczkowski PC, here in Phoenix, Arizona. Premises liability case is a case where a person is injured on the property of another, typically through a dangerous condition or dangerous instrumentality on the premises. So it is not a car accident and it’s not a medical malpractice case. It’s an injury that occurs when you fall on somebody else’s property typically.

Typically, broken sidewalk, a spill in the grocery store, falling merchandise – those are premises liability cases. In most of those types of cases, the defendant, the property owner, is going to assert that the injury is at least partially, if not completely, your fault. That’s why you need somebody who’s prepared to take the matter into litigation, and to court, because it will not resolve with a demand letter. It will have to go and be litigated.

If you have a serious personal injury, particularly if you were injured on premises, please contact my firm at (602) 840-8787, Jones Raczkowski PC.

By: Mack Jones

My name is Mark Raczkowski. I’m an attorney at Jones Raczkowski PC in Phoenix, Arizona. The biggest difference between slip and fall cases and other personal injury cases is that most of the time the defendants deny that they’re responsible for your injuries. As a result you have to sue them in order to get the compensation you deserve. My office has spent more than (25) years focusing on slip and fall/trip and fall cases. So we’re prepared to sue defendants if necessary in order to get the compensation that you deserve. It means we’re able– we’re willing to put in the time and the effort that it will take to prosecute the case and to achieve a satisfactory result for you. If you’ve suffered a serious injury as a result of a slip and fall or trip and fall accident, contact me through my website at www.azpremiseslaw.com.

By: Mark Raczkowski

Unsafe Premises

Well one of the main things we’re worried about at Friedl Richardson, are unsafe premises. And premises are generally unsafe, because the owner of those premises, be it a supermarket, a retail establishment, or any other commercial building, chooses to violate building codes, and make their premises dangerous for the people they’re inviting on-board to buy their product.

The most common ways that people are injured on premises are ways in which it would be so easy for the premises owner to have avoided. Quite often it’s just something that the premises owner puts up to look good. Something the premises owner puts up temporarily. Something the premises owner puts up that attracts people into their business, yet is unsafe. And those are the most common ways people can be injured when they’re in and out of commercial establishments.

By: Thomas Richardson

Hi, my name is Nathan Meyer. I’m a partner at Jaburg Wilk. My practice areas include insurance coverage, insurance bad faith, insurance UM and UIM litigation, as well as commercial litigation, professional liability litigation, and general liability litigation. There’s actually been some very favorable rulings for insurance companies regarding punitive damages. It started with a United States Supreme Court case in 2003 in Campbell. There is also recently been some Court of Appeals cases that has significantly reduced punitive damages award amounts to much more reasonable amounts in Arizona.

Reducing Punitive Damage Awards

In the United States Supreme court case “Campbell”, the court actually reduced a $145 million punitive damages award all the way down to a million dollars, or at least they said – they told the Utah Supreme Court, “We’re sending this back to you, and you need to reduce this award to something around a million dollars.”

In a recent Arizona Court of Appeals case, there was a $54 million punitive damages award. And the Court of Appeals initially reduced that from $54 million down to $620,000. Then the Arizona Supreme Court actually reduced it from $620,000 all the way down to $155,000. So it’s a substantial reduction.

Also you have another recent case called “Orellana the Prime Life Insurance Company”, and they reduced a punitive damage award from about $1.3 million all the way down to $320,000. So courts are really reducing some of these egregious punitive damages awards amounts down to something much more reasonable.

3 Factors Courts Consider When Reducing Punitive Damage Awards

In “Campbell V. State Farm”, that 2003 United States Supreme Court case, the court established three guide post a court should look at when they’re reviewing these large punitive damages awards.

One is reprehensibility, the degree of reprehensibility of the defendant’s conduct. Two is the disparity, and that’s where you get the ratio of the punitive damages to the compensatory damages. And the third is comparability to civil authorized fines, and those are usually fines authorized by statutes.

For example, in Arizona there is a maximum $50,000 fine per six month period when you violate the unfair claim settlement practices act. So those are the three things that courts look at when considering whether to reduce punitive damages.

By: Nathan D. Meyer