If you have been injured, call us immediately for a free consultation at 520-571-9700 or Toll Free at 1-866-514-0791 or submit a request for a free case review below.
Personal Injury Law:
Includes any harm done to person, property, rights, or reputation. Some injuries occur on the job, in a motor vehicle accident, or from an unsafe product. When harmed by the negligence or unsafe actions of another, Bellovin & Karnas can help you.
We help people who have injury claims arising from:
car accidents
motorcycle accidents
boating accidents
trucking accidents
train accidents
airplace accidents
helicopter accidents
recreational sporting accidents
pool accidents
explosions
evacuations
mold
contamination
medical errors
food poisioning
dog bites
slips/falls
Frequently Asked Questions:
What is negligence?
A person is negligent when he or she fails to act like the standard ordinary reasonable person. Of course the critical issue in many cases is just how an "ordinary, reasonable person" was expected to act in the particular situation that caused the injury.
For example, an ordinary, reasonable person can travel down the Interstate, which has a posted speed limit of 65 miles per hour, at 65 miles per hour. However, if dense fog is present, the same ordinary, reasonable person would be expected to reduce his/her speed of travel. Suppose someone plows into your car while she was driving at 55 or 45 or 35? Would that be what the standard ordinary reasonable person should have done?
The determination of whether a given person has met his/her "ordinary reasonable person" standard is often a matter that is resolved by a jury after presentation of evidence and argument at trial.
What is a tort?
A tort is a private or civil wrong or injury (other than breach of contract) for which a court of law may provide a remedy through a lawsuit for damages (compensation). When a person violates his/her duty to others created under general (or statutory) law, a tort has been committed.
The four elements present in a typical tort lawsuit are:
(1) The existence of a legal duty owed by a person to others
(2) The breach of the duty by one person (negligence)
(3) The breach of the duty being the proximate cause of damages suffered by a person
(4) Damages incurred by a person.
Each of the four elements of a tort typically must be present to be compensated.
What is “strict liability”?
Strict liability is a legal doctrine that makes some persons responsible for damages their actions or products cause, regardless of any "fault" on their part.
Strict liability often applies when people engage in inherently hazardous activities, such as doing "blasting" in a city, or keeping wild circus animals. If the blasting damages you -- no matter how careful the blasting company was -- it is liable for the injury. Similarly if the animals escape and injure someone, the fact that the circus used the world's strongest cages and the highest standard of care imaginable will not let it get off the hook.
Strict liability also may apply in the case of certain manufactured products. In strict product liability, typically anyone who is engaged in the stream of commence of the product (from the manufacturer to the wholesaler to the retailer, or all of them) can be held responsible if the product was defective and someone was injured. There is no need to prove negligence but the injured party must prove that the product was defective.
Defective products may be the result of bad manufacturing for the failure to provide adequate instructions for the use of the product. Those engaged in the stream of commerce with respect to products should reasonably foresee that some people will misuse the product and should design the product so that injury does not occur.
Disclaimers and waivers of liability for products are often invalidated by courts as against public policy (courts should not condone the manufacture and distribution of defective products) and typically warranties are limited so that manufacturers and retailers are held responsible for personal injuries caused by the use of the product.
Can negligence depend on who was doing what?
Yes. Distinctions often are made based upon a person's knowledge, experience and background, i.e. - certified public accountants have a greater standard of care to act with respect to financial data, attorneys have a greater degree of care when acting on behalf of a client, and physicians have a greater degree of care when treating patients than a person who tries to give first aid.
What is “comparative negligence”?
Comparative negligence comes into play when it is contended that two or more parties failed to perform at the standard of the "ordinary reasonable person". For example, suppose one person was driving too fast in a patch of dense fog on the highway and hit a car -- but the car that was hit did not have its lights on as it should have.
In a situation where each party has some degree of negligence in causing an accident, the responsibility to the other person(s) is reduced by the others' degree of negligence. For example suppose a jury decides that the driver going too fast in the fog was 60% responsible for the accident, while the driver without vehicle lights on is 40% responsible. If the driver who didn't have his lights on would have recovered $10,000, his recovery would be reduced to $6,000 because of his 40% contributory negligence. Whether the speeding driver would recover anything will depend on state law -- in some states the driver who bears over 50% of the responsibility would recover nothing, not the 40% of his damages.
What is “proximate cause”?
Proximate cause is the initial act which sets off a natural and continuous sequence of events that produces injury. In the absence of the initial act which produces injury, no injury would have resulted. Any time you act, you start a series of natural and continuous events to occur (for example, after swinging your arm with a ball in your hand, you release it and the ball then rolls down a hill).
Responsibility for injury lies with the last negligent act that produces the injury (after the ball rolls down the hill, a stranger picks it up, throws it through a window which breaks the glass, causing the glass to shatter and strike a person who was sitting next to the window, cutting her arm and requiring her to obtain medical treatment). In this example, although you caused the ball to roll down the hill, your act is not the proximate cause of the injury to the lady sitting next to the window, the stranger's act is the proximate cause of the lady's injury and the stranger, not you, should be held responsible for the injury that she suffered.
What is an “intervening cause”?
An intervening cause comes between one act (or failure to act) which alters the natural and continuous series of events that follows. When an intervening cause is present, since the natural chain of events have been changed due to the subsequent act of another, the initial actor may be relieved of the responsibility for an injury that is produced. In the example provided for proximate cause, the act of the stranger picking up the ball and throwing it through the window is an intervening cause which relieves you from the responsibility for injury which may have occurred as a result of your act. The responsibility for the injury to the lady is shifted and the stranger's act becomes the proximate cause for the lady's injury.
Back to Top
