Phoenix Personal Injury Lawyer: Protecting Your Rights After An Injury

If you or a loved one has been injured in an accident or intentionally by another person, you need to seek legal help from your Phoenix personal injury lawyer as soon as possible. Consulting with your Phoenix personal injury lawyer soon after suffering an injury will increase your chances of building a strong case on and recovering the maximum damages legally allowed.

Whether your injury was a result of an accident or someone intentionally caused it, a Phoenix personal injury lawyer has the experience and knowledge necessary to inform you of your legal rights and remedies, and help you seek the appropriate course of action thereafter.

Whether your injury was a result of an accident or someone intentionally caused it, a Phoenix personal injury lawyer has the experience and knowledge necessary to inform you of your legal rights and remedies, and help you seek the appropriate course of action thereafter.

 

ARE YOU READY TO GET STARTED ON YOUR CASE-Injuries are usually the result of some kind of tort. Torts are civil wrongdoings. There are essentially two types of torts: intentional and unintentional. Intentional torts result from acts which a person had a specific or general intent to commit. While “specific intent” refers to the result that the person had a conscious desire to cause by committing a certain act, “general intent” refers to a result that the person knew with substantial certainty would occur from his or her acts.

Furthermore, the act itself must be a volitional one (as opposed to an involuntary act, such as a seizure). Finally, there must be causation between the effected act and the (injurious) result. Generally, torts that do not fall in the “intentional” category are torts based on negligence of some sort, wanton and willful conduct, strict liability, or vicarious liability. There is usually some type of affirmative defense to a tort, regardless of the type of tort involved. As for intentional torts, a common defense is that of consent.

Furthermore, the act itself must be a volitional one (as opposed to an involuntary act, such as a seizure). Finally, there must be causation between the effected act and the (injurious) result. Generally, torts that do not fall in the “intentional” category are torts based on negligence of some sort, wanton and willful conduct, strict liability, or vicarious liability. There is usually some type of affirmative defense to a tort, regardless of the type of tort involved. As for intentional torts, a common defense is that of consent.

Phoenix personal injury lawyer, the kind of legal help you want on your side after an injury

Consent may be express or implicit. Express consent is one by which a person expressly agrees to abide (and may be made orally or in writing). Implicit consent is a type of consent that is inferred from the circumstances. (This type of consent is also known as “implied by law.”) Where everyday usage and custom dictate a certain type of

(This type of consent is also known as “implied by law.”) Where everyday usage and custom dictate a certain type of conduct, or a certain trade or activity involve some type of act or possible risk, a person that engages in such activities is said to have impliedly consented to whatever act/result is at issue that caused the injury. For instance, if a person bumps into another person in a crowded bus, such conduct is universally tolerated and accepted, and so there will probably not be a cause of action for a tort only based on those facts. Another example may be a doctor treating a patient in an emergency situation without the patient’s consent. Because of the nature of the emergency, the patient will be deemed to have consented to the doctor’s otherwise offensive/harmful touching and treatment. Yet another example is that of a boxer that gets knocked out in a boxing match; he or she consented to such harmful impact as this is common (and a potential risk) in the trade/activity of boxing.

Another example may be a doctor treating a patient in an emergency situation without the patient’s consent. Because of the nature of the emergency, the patient will be deemed to have consented to the doctor’s otherwise offensive/harmful touching and treatment. Yet another example is that of a boxer that gets knocked out in a boxing match; he or she consented to such harmful impact as this is common (and a potential risk) in the trade/activity of boxing.

For instance, if a person bumps into another person in a crowded bus, such conduct is universally tolerated and accepted, and so there will probably not be a cause of action for a tort only based on those facts. Another example may be a doctor treating a patient in an emergency situation without the patient’s consent. Because of the nature of the emergency, the patient will be deemed to have consented to the doctor’s otherwise offensive/harmful touching and treatment. Yet another example is that of a boxer that gets knocked out in a boxing match; he or she consented to such harmful impact as this is common (and a potential risk) in the trade/activity of boxing.

Because of the nature of the emergency, the patient will be deemed to have consented to the doctor’s otherwise offensive/harmful touching and treatment. Yet another example is that of a boxer that gets knocked out in a boxing match; he or she consented to such harmful impact as this is common (and a potential risk) in the trade/activity of boxing.

But what happens when an act goes beyond the scope of consent? In the boxing example above, would the boxer be said to have consented if his or her opponent grabbed a metal bar from outside the ring and hit the boxer over the head with it during the boxing match? Common sense will have us say “absolutely not.” And we would be correct (absent extraordinary circumstances, such as self-defense, as if the boxing match were to get incredibly out of control and such force was justified). Just as consent is a defense to an otherwise intentional tort, there are also defenses to “consent” that would essentially invalidate the consent in the first place. One such defense to consent is that of “scope.” Every time we consent to something, our consent is construed to be limited in scope to some predefined circumstance, act, place, or some other external factor. When a defendant acts beyond the scope of

Just as consent is a defense to an otherwise intentional tort, there are also defenses to “consent” that would essentially invalidate the consent in the first place. One such defense to consent is that of “scope.” Every time we consent to something, our consent is construed to be limited in scope to some predefined circumstance, act, place, or some other external factor. When a defendant acts beyond the scope of

Just as consent is a defense to an otherwise intentional tort, there are also defenses to “consent” that would essentially invalidate the consent in the first place. One such defense to consent is that of “scope.” Every time we consent to something, our consent is construed to be limited in scope to some predefined circumstance, act, place, or some other external factor. When a defendant acts beyond the scope of consent given by the plaintiff, the defendant may not successfully claim the defense of “consent” any longer, and he or she will be liable for the intentional tortuous act (absent some other valid defense).

When a defendant acts beyond the scope of consent given by the plaintiff, the defendant may not successfully claim the defense of “consent” any longer, and he or she will be liable for the intentional tortuous act (absent some other valid defense).

Likewise, if a child is injured during a sporting event as a result of someone else’s intentional act, he or she may be liable to the child regardless of the child’s “implied consent” to the potential risks of the sport, assuming the intentional act went beyond that consent (measured under the circumstances and in light of that trade or sport’s customs). For instance, a football player that intentionally (and foully) tackles another player may simply be suspended or expulsed from the game, and might not be legally liable under tort law for battery, an intentional tort (assuming the tackle did not exceed normal tackling standards in the sport of football, among other factors). And the injured tackled player might not be able to successfully bring a cause of action for the intentional tort, given the nature of the activity, risks and the type of consent involved.

For instance, a football player that intentionally (and foully) tackles another player may simply be suspended or expulsed from the game, and might not be legally liable under tort law for battery, an intentional tort (assuming the tackle did not exceed normal tackling standards in the sport of football, among other factors). And the injured tackled player might not be able to successfully bring a cause of action for the intentional tort, given the nature of the activity, risks and the type of consent involved.

If you think that you or a loved one has been a victim to a tortuous act, consult with your Phoenix personal injury lawyer to determine if there is any merit to your claim.

A certified Phoenix personal injury lawyer is your best choice when deciding what lawyer to hire to handle your case. A certified Phoenix personal injury lawyer is specialized in intentional and negligent tortuous acts and has the experience, knowledge, and accredited credentials to prove it, and can help you make the most out of your case.