In the context of a hit and run, which statement is true?

In the context of a hit and run, the statement that the driver can be partially liable is true because liability in such incidents often depends on the specific circumstances of the case. Various factors can contribute to a driver's level of fault, such as road conditions, actions taken just before the incident, and whether the driver attempted to avoid the accident. Arizona law acknowledges that liability may not always rest solely on one party, and there can be shared responsibility between different individuals involved in the incident.

For example, if a driver reacts to an unexpected hazard and, while doing so, inadvertently causes a collision before they leave the scene, they may still hold partial liability. This concept of comparative fault allows for a fair determination of fault based on all actions leading up to the incident, not just the decision to flee the scene. Therefore, the assertion that a driver can be partially liable accurately reflects the complexity of determining fault in hit and run cases, recognizing that circumstances can influence the outcome of liabilities.