Pedestrian Accident Complaint

PEDESTRIAN ACCIDENT COMPLAINT — ARIZONA

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Caption
2. Parties
3. Jurisdiction and Venue
4. General Factual Allegations
5. Count I — Negligence
6. Count II — Negligence Per Se
7. Count III — Negligent Entrustment / Vicarious Liability
8. Comparative Fault Statement
9. Damages
10. Prayer for Relief
11. Demand for Jury Trial
12. Certificate Regarding Compulsory Arbitration
13. Reservation of Rights
14. Signature Block
15. Arizona Practice Notes
16. Sources and References

1. CAPTION

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF [COUNTY]

CASE NO. [________________]

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES (PEDESTRIAN COLLISION)

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

(Tier [___] — Certificate re: Compulsory Arbitration attached)

For its Complaint against Defendants, Plaintiff alleges as follows:

2. PARTIES

1. Plaintiff is, and at all relevant times was, a resident of [COUNTY], Arizona, and was lawfully present as a pedestrian within the State.

2. Defendant [DRIVER NAME] ("Defendant Driver") is, upon information and belief, a resident of [COUNTY / STATE] and may be served at [SERVICE ADDRESS] pursuant to Ariz. R. Civ. P. 4 / 4.2.

3. Defendant [OWNER NAME] ("Defendant Owner"), if different from Defendant Driver, is the titled or registered owner of the vehicle operated by Defendant Driver and/or the employer of Defendant Driver, and may be served at [SERVICE ADDRESS / STATUTORY AGENT].

4. The fictitiously named Doe, ABC, and XYZ Defendants are persons or entities whose identities are presently unknown. Plaintiff will amend this Complaint to allege their true names and capacities when ascertained.

3. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

5. This Court has subject-matter jurisdiction under Ariz. Const. art. VI, § 14 and A.R.S. § 12-123 et seq., because the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional minimum of the Superior Court and the claims are not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any other court.

6. Venue is proper in this County under A.R.S. § 12-401 because the Collision occurred in this County and/or Defendants reside or conduct business here.

7. Arizona follows a pure comparative-fault regime. A.R.S. § 12-2505. Plaintiff brings this action consistent with that framework.

4. GENERAL FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

8. On [__/__/____] at approximately [TIME], Plaintiff was lawfully crossing / walking [DESCRIBE — e.g., within the marked crosswalk at the intersection of ___ and ___; within an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection; along the shoulder of ___], in [CITY], Arizona (the "Collision").

9. At the same time and place, Defendant Driver was operating a [YEAR / MAKE / MODEL] [passenger vehicle / truck / SUV] owned by Defendant Owner, traveling [direction] on [STREET / ROUTE].

10. [Where applicable] A pedestrian-control or traffic-control signal [displayed "WALK" / displayed a green light in Plaintiff's direction / was not in place or not in operation], and Plaintiff had the right-of-way and was crossing within the crosswalk (marked or unmarked).

11. Roadway, lighting, and weather conditions were [describe — e.g., clear, dry, daylight; or dusk / nighttime on a wide arterial].

12. The Collision occurred when Defendant Driver [DESCRIBE THE MANNER — e.g., failed to yield the right-of-way to Plaintiff in the crosswalk; turned across the crosswalk into Plaintiff's path; failed to keep a proper lookout and struck Plaintiff; was traveling at an excessive or unsafe speed; was distracted by a mobile device; overtook a vehicle stopped to let Plaintiff cross; ran a red light or stop sign].

13. Plaintiff was plainly visible to Defendant Driver, who failed to see Plaintiff in time, misjudged the situation, and/or failed to exercise the due care that Arizona law requires of every driver to avoid colliding with a pedestrian.

14. Plaintiff had the right-of-way and exercised reasonable care for Plaintiff's own safety at all material times.

15. As a direct and proximate result of the Collision, Plaintiff — an unprotected pedestrian struck by the mass and force of a motor vehicle — sustained severe and permanent injuries, including but not limited to [LIST INJURIES — e.g., fractures, traumatic brain injury, spinal injury, internal injuries, degloving / road rash, and disfiguring scarring].

16. Because a pedestrian lacks the structural protection, restraints, and crumple zones of an enclosed vehicle, the Collision caused Plaintiff catastrophic injuries materially more severe than those typically sustained by occupants of vehicles.

17. Plaintiff received emergency care at [HOSPITAL / EMS] and has undergone [TREATMENT], with future care anticipated.

5. COUNT I — NEGLIGENCE

18. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates Paragraphs 1 through 17.

19. Duty. Defendants owed Plaintiff a duty of reasonable care in the operation, ownership, maintenance, and control of the vehicle, including the duty to obey Arizona traffic laws, to keep a proper lookout for pedestrians, to yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian lawfully within a crosswalk, and to exercise due care to avoid colliding with any pedestrian on the roadway.

20. Breach. Defendant Driver breached that duty by, among other things:

• Failing to yield the right-of-way to Plaintiff, a pedestrian crossing within a crosswalk;
• Failing to keep a proper and careful lookout for pedestrians;
• Operating the vehicle at an excessive or unsafe speed for conditions and the presence of pedestrians;
• Driving while distracted or inattentive;
• Overtaking and passing a vehicle stopped at a crosswalk to permit a pedestrian to cross;
• Failing to exercise due care to avoid colliding with a pedestrian and to sound a warning when necessary; and
• Failing to take reasonable evasive action to avoid striking Plaintiff.

21. Causation. Defendants' breaches were the but-for and proximate cause of the Collision and of Plaintiff's injuries and damages.

22. Damages. Plaintiff incorporates Section 9 by reference.

6. COUNT II — NEGLIGENCE PER SE

23. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates Paragraphs 1 through 22.

24. The Arizona Revised Statutes impose specific duties on Defendant Driver for the protection of pedestrians such as Plaintiff, including, as applicable:

• A.R.S. § 28-792 — if traffic-control signals are not in place or not in operation, the driver of a vehicle shall yield the right-of-way, slowing down or stopping if need be, to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within a crosswalk when the pedestrian is on the half of the roadway on which the vehicle is traveling, or so closely approaching from the opposite half as to be in danger; and no driver approaching from the rear may overtake and pass a vehicle stopped at a marked or unmarked crosswalk to permit a pedestrian to cross (the crosswalk right-of-way protects pedestrians at both marked and unmarked crosswalks at intersections);
• A.R.S. § 28-794 — every driver shall exercise due care to avoid colliding with any pedestrian on any roadway, shall give warning by sounding the horn when necessary, and shall exercise proper precaution on observing a child or a confused or incapacitated person on a roadway; and
• A.R.S. § 28-790 / § 28-791 — governing pedestrian and driver obedience to traffic-control devices and pedestrian-control signals at signalized intersections.

25. Plaintiff is within the class of persons these statutes were enacted to protect, and the Collision is the type of harm they were designed to prevent.

26. Defendant Driver violated [CITE THE SPECIFIC SECTION(S)], and was cited for [CITATION, IF ANY]. Such violation constitutes negligence per se under Arizona law and was a direct and proximate cause of Plaintiff's injuries and damages.

7. COUNT III — NEGLIGENT ENTRUSTMENT / VICARIOUS LIABILITY

27. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates Paragraphs 1 through 26.

28. Defendant Owner entrusted the subject vehicle to Defendant Driver when Defendant Owner knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known, that Defendant Driver was an incompetent, inexperienced, reckless, or otherwise unfit driver.

29. Alternatively, at the time of the Collision, Defendant Driver was acting as the agent, servant, or employee of Defendant Owner and within the scope of that agency or employment, rendering Defendant Owner vicariously liable under respondeat superior.

30. Defendant Owner's negligent entrustment and/or vicarious liability was a direct and proximate cause of Plaintiff's injuries and damages.

8. COMPARATIVE FAULT STATEMENT

31. Pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-2505, Plaintiff denies any comparative fault. In the alternative, if comparative fault is asserted — for example, on a defense theory that Plaintiff crossed outside a crosswalk (A.R.S. § 28-793) or against a signal (A.R.S. § 28-790) — any such fault does not bar recovery and reduces damages only in the proportion determined by the trier of fact. Fault shall be apportioned among all responsible parties (and may include nonparties properly identified) under A.R.S. § 12-2506.

9. DAMAGES

32. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' conduct, Plaintiff has suffered and seeks recovery of:

• Past and future medical expenses — emergency, hospital, surgical, diagnostic, rehabilitative, pharmaceutical, and physician care;
• Future medical and life-care costs, including prosthetics, assistive devices, and attendant care, to be proven at trial;
• Past lost wages and loss of future earning capacity;
• Physical pain, suffering, and emotional distress — past and future;
• Permanent physical impairment and disfigurement, including scarring from road rash and surgery;
• Loss of enjoyment of life; and
• Property damage to Plaintiff's personal effects, as applicable.

33. Plaintiff also seeks punitive or exemplary damages if supported by clear and convincing evidence of aggravated, malicious, or outrageous conduct (an "evil mind").

34. No statutory cap applies to the damages sought herein. Ariz. Const. art. II, § 31.

10. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests judgment against Defendants as follows:

1. General (non-economic) damages in an amount to be proven at trial;
2. Special (economic) damages, including medical expenses and lost earnings, in an amount to be proven at trial;
3. Punitive or exemplary damages as permitted by Arizona law;
4. Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest at the maximum lawful rate;
5. Costs and, where applicable, reasonable attorney's fees; and
6. Such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

11. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable as a matter of right pursuant to Ariz. R. Civ. P. 38 and Ariz. Const. art. II, § 23.

12. CERTIFICATE REGARDING COMPULSORY ARBITRATION

Pursuant to Ariz. R. Civ. P. 72–77 and the applicable local rule, the undersigned certifies that the amount in controversy [exceeds / does not exceed] the jurisdictional limit for compulsory arbitration in [COUNTY] County. Accordingly, this case [is not / is] subject to compulsory arbitration.

13. RESERVATION OF RIGHTS

Plaintiff reserves the right to amend this Complaint pursuant to Ariz. R. Civ. P. 15 to conform to the evidence and to add parties or claims as discovery proceeds.

14. SIGNATURE BLOCK

Respectfully submitted this [____] day of [MONTH], 20[____].

[LAW FIRM NAME]

By: [________________________________]

[ATTORNEY NAME], Esq.

Arizona Bar No. [________]

Attorney for Plaintiff

[ADDRESS] — [PHONE] — [EMAIL]

15. ARIZONA PRACTICE NOTES

• Statute of limitations. Personal-injury actions must be filed within two years of accrual. A.R.S. § 12-542. If a government entity is involved (e.g., a dangerous-roadway-design theory against a city/ADOT, or a government-owned vehicle), a notice of claim must be served within 180 days under A.R.S. § 12-821.01, with suit filed within one year (A.R.S. § 12-821).
• Pure comparative fault — favorable to pedestrians. Under A.R.S. § 12-2505, the plaintiff's recovery is reduced by, but never barred by, the plaintiff's percentage of fault (subject to the narrow exception for intentionally or willfully self-caused injury). This matters in pedestrian cases because the defense routinely argues the pedestrian jaywalked, crossed against a signal, or "darted out." Fault is apportioned among all parties (and may include nonparties properly identified) under A.R.S. § 12-2506; comply with the rule and deadline for naming nonparties at fault.
• Crosswalk and due-care framework. A.R.S. § 28-792 requires drivers to yield to pedestrians in a crosswalk — and a crosswalk exists by operation of law at every intersection, marked or unmarked. Outside a crosswalk, the pedestrian must yield to vehicles (A.R.S. § 28-793), and pedestrians must obey signals (A.R.S. § 28-790, § 28-791). But regardless of right-of-way — including mid-block — A.R.S. § 28-794 imposes an independent duty on every driver to exercise due care to avoid colliding with a pedestrian. Plead § 28-792 / § 28-794 as the negligence-per-se hooks and develop the precise crossing location, signal phase, and conspicuity.
• No damages cap. The Arizona Constitution prohibits statutory caps on damages for personal injury or death. Ariz. Const. art. II, § 31. Punitive damages require clear-and-convincing proof of an "evil mind."
• UM/UIM and hit-and-run. A pedestrian struck by a motor vehicle may recover under their own uninsured/underinsured-motorist (UM/UIM) coverage — and under a resident relative's policy — because pedestrians are "insureds" for UM/UIM purposes; Arizona insurers must offer UM/UIM coverage, and minimum liability limits (25/50/15) are easily exhausted in a serious pedestrian crash. UM coverage also responds to a hit-and-run driver (note that leaving the scene of an injury collision is a felony under A.R.S. § 28-661, and a hit-and-run pedestrian case often makes the pedestrian's own UM coverage the primary source of compensation). Promptly identify all applicable policies, notify the UM/UIM carrier, and comply with consent-to-settle and subrogation requirements before resolving the liability claim.
• Compulsory arbitration. Cases at or below the county's jurisdictional arbitration limit are subject to compulsory arbitration; the certificate (Section 12) must accompany the complaint. Many serious pedestrian-injury cases exceed the limit and proceed in the standard civil track.
• Service. Service is governed by Ariz. R. Civ. P. 4, 4.1 (in-state), and 4.2 (out-of-state).

16. SOURCES AND REFERENCES

• Arizona Revised Statutes (Title 12 — Courts and Civil Proceedings; Title 28 — Transportation) — https://www.azleg.gov/arstitle/
• A.R.S. § 12-542 (two-year limitations) — https://www.azleg.gov/ars/12/00542.htm
• A.R.S. § 12-2505 (comparative fault); § 12-2506 (several liability) — https://www.azleg.gov/ars/12/02505.htm
• A.R.S. § 28-792 (right-of-way at crosswalk) — https://www.azleg.gov/ars/28/00792.htm
• A.R.S. § 28-793 (crossing at other than crosswalk) — https://www.azleg.gov/ars/28/00793.htm
• A.R.S. § 28-794 (drivers to exercise due care) — https://www.azleg.gov/ars/28/00794.htm
• A.R.S. § 28-790 / § 28-791 (obedience to traffic-control devices; pedestrian right-of-way at signals)
• Ariz. Const. art. II, § 31 (no damages cap)
• Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure (Rules 4, 4.1, 4.2, 8, 15, 38, 72–77); Revised Arizona Jury Instructions (RAJI) — Personal Injury

Disclaimer: This template is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. An attorney licensed in Arizona must review and customize this document before filing. Laws, citations, and court rules change frequently; verify all authorities before use.