Call For A Free Consultation(602) 345-1818Free Case Review
-
Cities Served
-
T-Shirt Lawyer
Fighting Suits,
Not Wearing Them.Enter the universeStories, animation and community. Created by Impact Legal.
Call For A Free Consultation(602) 345-1818Free Case Review
Fighting Suits, Stories, animation and community. Created by Impact Legal.
We're Here To Help 24/7
(602) 345-1818A tractor-trailer starts a right turn at a Phoenix intersection. The cab swings left first, the trailer cuts inside the turn, and the vehicle, cyclist, or pedestrian in that space gets crushed or dragged. If that happened to you, the trucking company’s insurer is already building a version of events where you were in the wrong place. This article explains how a wide turn truck accident claim in Arizona gets proven: the physics of off-tracking, the evidence that shows whether the driver checked the blind zone, and how Arizona’s fault rules change what you recover. Our team handles these matters through our truck accident practice.
Where this page states a federal regulation or an Arizona statute, the source is cited so you can read it yourself. Rules change and the facts of a specific crash change the answer, so treat this as education rather than advice on any particular claim.
There is no separate “wide-turn” statute. These are ordinary negligence claims, which means the same four elements apply: duty, breach, causation, and damages. What makes them distinct is the mechanism of the crash and the evidence needed to prove breach.
A wide-turn truck accident generally involves one of these patterns:
The legal question is rarely “did the trailer hit them.” It is whether the driver operated a long combination vehicle in a way that accounted for the space that vehicle actually needs, and whether the carrier put a trained driver on an appropriate route. Those are different questions with different evidence.
Wide-turn crashes sit next to other truck collision types we cover, including semi-truck and 18-wheeler crashes generally and right-hook bicycle collisions, which share much of the same blind-zone analysis.
Here is what most people do not realize about a 53-foot trailer. During a turn, the trailer’s wheels do not follow the path of the tractor’s wheels. They track a shorter, tighter, inner arc. Engineers call this off-tracking.
The practical effect: as the cab moves through the turn, the trailer cuts across the space the cab just vacated. That swept space is a moving hazard zone. Anyone occupying it, a cyclist in a bike lane, a pedestrian starting into a crosswalk, a sedan that pulled up beside the trailer at the light, can be struck by a section of trailer the driver may never see in a mirror.
Two problems stack on top of each other:
That is the core of a wide-turn case. Off-tracking is predictable. Commercial drivers are trained on it. A defense that says “the trailer just swung out” is a description of the crash, not an excuse for it.
Tight downtown intersections, older Phoenix street grids, and driveways off major arterials make the problem worse, because the turning radius available is smaller than the radius the combination vehicle actually needs.
Fault in these cases usually runs in one or both of two directions.
The driver. Failing to check the right-side blind zone before initiating the turn. Turning from an improper lane position. Signaling late or not at all. Starting the turn while a cyclist or pedestrian was visibly approaching. Taking the turn at a speed that made mirror checks meaningless.
The motor carrier. Under Arizona’s common-law vicarious liability principles, often described as respondeat superior, an employer can be held responsible for an employee’s negligent acts committed within the scope of employment. Whether particular conduct falls within that scope is a fact-specific question, though a driver running assigned freight on an assigned route is a common example. This matters for two reasons. The carrier typically has far more insurance than the driver personally. And the carrier can also be independently negligent: inadequate training on off-tracking procedures, assigning a long combination vehicle to a route with intersections it cannot safely negotiate, or scheduling that pushed the driver past safe limits.
Fatigue overlaps here more often than people expect. Federal rules limit property-carrying drivers to 11 hours of driving within a 14-hour window after 10 consecutive hours off duty, per the FMCSA’s hours-of-service regulations. A driver at hour 13 of a shift makes slower, shallower mirror checks. That is a carrier scheduling issue, not just a driver mistake.
These crashes break into recognizable fact patterns, and the defense argument is different in each one.
Pedestrians in the crosswalk. A pedestrian steps off with a walk signal as a truck begins a right turn on the same green. The cab clears. The trailer does not. The insurer’s argument is usually that the pedestrian “walked into” the side of the trailer. The counter-evidence is signal timing, crosswalk position, and where the initial impact point sits along the trailer. If you were struck on foot, the analysis we use in pedestrian crosswalk claims applies directly.
Bicyclists in a bike lane or at the curb. A cyclist riding lawfully to the right of a truck is inside the swept zone the moment the trailer starts tracking inward. Insurers argue the cyclist should not have been beside a turning truck. The response is lane markings, the timing of the turn signal, and whether the truck had already established a position that gave the cyclist notice.
Passenger vehicles passing on the right. A truck drifts left to set up a right turn. A driver behind reads that as the truck going straight or changing lanes, and goes up the right side. The trailer comes back across. Here comparative fault is genuinely contested, and the deciding facts are turn-signal timing and lane position. Both are documentable.
In every one of these, the fight is not about whether contact happened. It is about lane position, signal timing, and visibility, which is why the evidence work below decides the case.
Serious crash investigation follows a documented method. NHTSA’s Special Crash Investigations program builds its case files from crash-scene inspection, vehicle examination, occupant and witness interviews, police reports, medical records, and event data recorder downloads. That combination is a sound template for a private wide-turn investigation too.
Camera footage. Intersection cameras, nearby business surveillance, dash cams in following vehicles, and in-cab cameras (many fleets run both road-facing and driver-facing units). Footage shows the truck’s lane position before the turn, when the signal came on, and whether the driver’s head turned toward the right mirror. Most of this footage overwrites itself on a short cycle, so a preservation demand needs to go out fast. See our guidance on preserving surveillance video after a crash.
Driver training and route records. This category often decides the carrier-negligence side of the case. Carriers maintain driver qualification files, training curricula, road-test records, and remedial training documentation. The questions worth asking: was this driver trained on off-tracking procedures for this trailer length? Was there prior coaching on right-turn blind-zone checks? Who assigned this route, and did the dispatch system flag intersections unsuitable for the combination? Route-assignment records can show a carrier sent a long trailer somewhere it should not have gone.
ELD and engine data. Electronic logging devices are required to record specified data about driving time, engine status, vehicle movement, location, and driver identification under the federal ELD rule. Be careful here. An ELD is not automatically a full speed-and-braking recorder. Some tractors also carry engine control module or event data recorder capability that captures more. The right sequence is to identify the actual device installed, confirm the carrier’s retention policy, and preserve the data before making claims about pre-turn speed or brake application. Our page on ELD and logbook evidence covers the mechanics, and log data is also where driver fatigue and hours-of-service problems surface.
Reconstruction. Tire marks, trailer scuff patterns, impact location along the trailer, and vehicle rest positions let a reconstruction expert reproduce the swept path. That is how an abstract argument about off-tracking becomes a diagram a jury can follow. More on that in our overview of accident reconstruction evidence in Arizona.
Arizona applies comparative fault under A.R.S. § 12-2505. As a general rule, a claimant’s full damages are reduced in proportion to that claimant’s own percentage of fault.
Three qualifications belong with that rule.
First, the statute contains an exception. Section 12-2505(A) provides that there is no right to comparative negligence in favor of any claimant who has intentionally, wilfully or wantonly caused or contributed to the injury or wrongful death. So “reduced rather than barred” is the general pattern, not an absolute.
Second, the same subsection provides that the defense of contributory negligence or of assumption of risk is in all cases a question of fact and shall at all times be left to the jury. That is the statute’s actual language, and it is about the jury’s role at trial.
Third, subsection (B) defines the “claimant’s fault” for purposes of this section to include fault imputed or attributed to a claimant by operation of law. That definition is about fault charged to the injured claimant, not about imputing a driver’s fault to an employer. Employer responsibility for a driver comes from separate vicarious liability principles, described above.
The arithmetic, where the general rule applies, is total damages multiplied by (100% minus the claimant’s fault percentage). That is a formula, not a prediction. Actual value depends on injury severity, treatment history, liability proof, available coverage, and documentation.
One practical note. Most claims resolve before trial, and in that setting the adjuster proposes a fault percentage as part of a settlement evaluation. That number is a negotiating position, not a legal finding. If the claim does not resolve and suit is filed, the fact-finder decides the issue.
This is exactly why wide-turn cases turn on lane position and signal timing. A shift from 15% to 45% comparative fault changes the outcome dramatically, and it gets decided on video and in records rather than by argument. Read more about how fault percentages work in Arizona.
Interstate motor carriers must carry minimum financial responsibility set by federal regulation. For most freight-hauling trucks over 10,000 pounds operating in interstate commerce, the floor is $750,000 in combined single-limit coverage under 49 CFR § 387.9, with higher minimums for certain hazardous cargo.
Two practical consequences. First, a commercial truck claim usually has meaningfully more coverage available than a two-car collision, which matters when injuries are catastrophic. Second, that coverage comes with a defense operation built to limit exposure: rapid-response investigators, retained experts, and counsel engaged sometimes within hours. The carrier may be documenting the scene while you are still in the emergency department. Coverage layers, excess policies, broker and shipper involvement, and leasing arrangements all have to be identified case by case.
Practical steps, in order:
Our step-by-step on what to do after a car accident in Phoenix covers the general version of this checklist.
Arizona’s general personal injury deadline is two years after the cause of action accrues, under A.R.S. § 12-542.
Death claims run two years as well, but accrual is different. Under A.R.S. § 12-542(2), an action for injuries where death ensues is considered to accrue at the death of the party injured, which can be later than the date of the crash.
Verify the deadline that applies to your situation rather than assuming. Discovery rules, tolling for minors, and notice requirements can all move the date.
Government-related crashes work differently, and the difference is easy to miss. If a public entity or public employee is involved, for example a city truck, a school district vehicle, or a public transit vehicle:
We cover the mechanics in more detail in our page on the Arizona notice of claim process.
Evidence deadlines are shorter than legal deadlines. Video cycles over in days. Retention policies expire. Waiting until month 20 to start usually means the proof is already gone.
No. Arizona apportions fault under A.R.S. § 12-2505, and contact with the trailer is a starting point rather than a conclusion. Lane position, signal timing, and whether you had a reasonable opportunity to stay clear of the swept zone all factor in. If the case is tried, the statute provides that the defense of contributory negligence or of assumption of risk is a question of fact left to the jury.
Often yes. As a general rule, Arizona reduces a claimant’s recovery by that claimant’s percentage of fault rather than barring it. Section 12-2505(A) carves out claimants who intentionally, wilfully or wantonly caused or contributed to the injury. In pre-suit negotiation, the adjuster will propose a percentage; that proposal is a negotiating position that the evidence may not support.
Off-tracking is the tendency of a trailer’s wheels to follow a tighter, inner path than the tractor during a turn. It creates a swept blind zone alongside the truck. It matters because commercial drivers are trained on it, which makes the hazard foreseeable rather than freak.
Not voluntarily, in most cases. ELDs record required driving-time, engine, movement, location, and driver-identification data under the federal ELD rule, and carriers apply retention policies that eventually purge records. A written preservation demand, and formal discovery if litigation follows, is how that data gets secured.
Potentially the motor carrier, both vicariously for a driver acting within the scope of employment and separately for its own negligence in training, supervision, route assignment, or scheduling. Depending on the arrangement, a trailer owner, lessor, broker, or maintenance contractor may also be involved.
Interstate carriers hauling general freight over 10,000 pounds must carry at least $750,000 under 49 CFR § 387.9, and many carry more through excess layers. Certain hazardous materials haulers face higher minimums.
Wide-turn cases are won on lane position, signal timing, and records the carrier controls. Those records disappear on a schedule. If a trailer swept into you at a Phoenix intersection, get a clear answer about the evidence in your crash before you give anyone a statement.
Free case review with Jared J. Pehrson, who handles Arizona car and truck accident matters personally: (602) 345-1818. We answer 24/7. Contingency fee terms, and how case costs are handled, are set out in a written fee agreement.
By Jared J. Pehrson | Impact Legal Car Accident Attorneys
A free conversation can help you understand your next step.