Tag Archives: case law

Violation of a statute enacted for the public safety is negligence per se

Sisk v. Ball, 91 Ariz. 239, 371 P.2d 594 (1962):

“Violation of a statute enacted for the public safety is negligence per se,Anderson v. Morgan, 73 Ariz. 344, 241 P.2d 786 (1952), and when this theory is supported by the evidence, [a party] is entitled to have a properly worded instruction on this issue read to the jury. Of course, a violation of the statutory duty must be also a proximate cause of the injury to constitute actionable negligence. Caldwell v. Tremper, 90 Ariz. 241, 367 P.2d 266 (1961).” 91 Ariz. at 242, 371 P.2d at 595-96.

 Here are a couple of definitions of negligence per se: nolo.comlexisnexis.com

DUI Brake Light Conviction tossed

“When it comes to brake lights, one is enough, at least according to the state Court of Appeals. In a unanimous decision Friday, the judges threw out the drunk driving conviction of Aaron Fikes.” — verdenews.com Weird, i’m not seeing anyone like Arizona Republic covering it; at least according to a search… I heard a short mention of it on KJZZ news.

Since the case was out of Tucson, it would have been heard in the Arizona Court of Appeals, Division Two. And sure enough, it popped right up under recent casesSTATE OF ARIZONA v. AARON RAYMOND FIKES CR20110124. Note that the driver was up on serious charges, aggravated (indicating other/previous problems; such as previous simple dui convictions, or suspension, or driving dui with a minor in the vehicle) DUI, and driving on a suspended license, for which he was sentenced to 4 months in jail and 3 years of probation.

In short, the conviction was tossed because the traffic stop was found to be without just cause, and therefore the evidence that the driver was DUI should have been supressed. The State Attorney General’s office vows appeal to Arizona Supreme Court. Continue reading DUI Brake Light Conviction tossed

Sidewalk Cycling in Arizona

Cycling on the sidewalk is generally far more dangerous than doing so properly in the roadway. All stats and studies that I am aware of reinforce this fact. For example, in the city of Phoenix’s 2007 Bicycle Collision Summary in the majority of the bike-motor vehicle collisions the cyclist was riding on the sidewalk just before the collision. (308 of 440 total collisions = 70%); and these numbers are pretty consistent, in the previous 2005 summary, it was 72%.

What about legality, though? (roundup of laws across 50 states here) Continue reading Sidewalk Cycling in Arizona

Take the lane

*** a third win, see Another Appellate win for bicyclists in Pima County. Here is the order. ***

Educated cyclists know that they not only can (legally), but should (for safety) occupy an entire lane when conditions dictate. One of these conditions is when the lane is too narrow to safely share side-by-side. See more on the safety discussion at Where to ride on the road.

Arizona law is quite strong and plain in this regard. Continue reading Take the lane

Judge to cyclist: ride in the gutter pan

[update sometime in 2012(? in any event, well after this ticket and trial) the deputy who wrote this citation was relieved of duty with the CCSO, he apparently had some truthfullness and other job-performance issues]

A Flagstaff cyclist was ticketed for violating ARS 28-704A by a Yavapi Coconino County Sheriff’s deputy. The deputy was apparently upset that a cyclist was impeding traffic, that is blocking a lane — seeing as how there was a perfectly good bike lane available. Continue reading Judge to cyclist: ride in the gutter pan