PA Personal Injury
Legal Decisions
***********************
Personal Injury Victim
Denied Delay Damages
A 2009 decision of the Superior Court of Pennsylvania denied an injured worker's claim of nearly $85,000.00 in delay damages after an Erie County PA jury verdict. The victim was working at a construction site when he was injured due to the negligence of employees of another company. His Pennsylvania personal injury attorney entered into a high/low settlement agreement with the Defendant's insurance company.
Any jury verdict below the minimum settlement number would be adjusted up to that number. A verdict rendered above the high number would be reduced to that figure. The Erie County Court of Common Pleas jury verdict was higher than the agreed upon maximum damage award. Once the judge molded the verdict, the victim's trial attorney filed a motion requesting the addition of delay damages.
The Erie County trial judge denied the motion. The high/low agreement was clear and unambiguous. The Appeals Court affirmed the lower court decision. Since the high/low settlement agreement did not discuss delay damages, the contract could not be amended by the court to add additional financial liability on the part of the Defendant's insurance carrier. Thompson v. T. J. Whipple Construction Co., 985 A.2d 221 (Pa. Super. 2009)
***********************
Jury to Decide Fault re:
Construction Site Car Crash
A November 2009 ruling of Judge Kwidis of the Beaver County PA Court of Common Pleas denied the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by a construction company and permitted a Pennsylvania car crash victim to proceed to a jury trial. The driver came to an intersection in Aliquippa PA which was under construction.
The right lane was closed and traffic was diverted into the left lane. The driver didn't notice the altered traffic pattern and crashed into the concrete median in the center of the 4 lane road. His gas tank ruptured and he sustained 2nd and 3rd degree burns which required 3 surgeries with skin grafting.
A lawsuit was filed against PennDOT and the construction company working on the site. It alleged that the Defendants created a dangerous condition by not adequately warning drivers of the potential dangers within the construction site re: the right lane closure and the damaged median. The Beaver County Judge ruled that issues of fact should be decided by a jury regarding the need for appropriate warning signs. Mavrich v PennDOT and Golden Triangle Construction Co., Court of Common Pleas Beaver County PA, No. 10900 of 2003 (Nov. 30, 2009 J. Kwidis)
***********************
Assumption of Risk Not a
Bar to Golfer's Lawsuit
An August 2009 judicial ruling of the Superior Court of Pennsylvania permitted a golfer to pursue his Philadelphia County personal injury lawsuit. The golfer was playing in a charity golf outing when he agreed to drive his golf cart to the next hole to see if the playing group ahead had cleared the green. On his way back to the tee box, one of his partners hit a wayward tee shot hitting the victim in the face.
Once the personal injury lawsuit was filed, the defendant golfer's lawyer filed a motion for summary judgment. It was granted by the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas based upon the legal doctrine of assumption of the risk. The Appeals Court overturned the trial court decision.
The victim raised a factual issue that would potentially allow a jury to decide that the defendant golfer should have waited for the victim to return to the tee box area before he hit his tee shot. If he owed that duty and failed to do so, his negligence caused the accident. Zeidman v. Fisher, 980 A.2d 637 (Pa. Super. 2009)
***********************
Evidence of Non-Use of
Seatbelts results in New Trial
A 2009 opinion of the PA Superior Court resulted in a new trial granted to the Estate of a Pennsylvania motor vehicle accident victim. A pick-up driver approached an intersection in Lackawanna PA where the stop sign had been knocked down. He applied his brakes and skidded thru the intersection hitting an embankment. When the emergency personnel arrived on the scene, they found the Pike County PA personal injury victim dead in the passenger seat.
A wrongful death claim was filed with the Pike County Court of Common Pleas against Ford Motor Co. - the manufacturer of the pick-up truck. A product liability claim was presented to the jury based upon the legal theory that the airbag system was defective. The Pike County trial judge permitted Ford to present evidence that the pick-up truck driver was not wearing his seat belt at the time of the crash. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the Defendant.
The personal injury attorney filed an appeal based upon Section 4581 of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Code. The PA Superior Court agreed that Pennsylvania Law prohibits the admissibility of the non-use of seat belts into evidence. A new trial was granted to the Estate of the accident victim. Gaudio v. Ford Motor Co., 976 A.2d 524 (PA Super. 2009)
***********************
Recreational Use of Land
and Water Act Denies Claim
A 2008 Decision of the Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirmed a Lackawanna County Trial Judge's decision to dismiss a boy's personal injury lawsuit. He had driven his motorbike on a company's property that was mostly undeveloped. The real estate had areas of brush and trees that were transected by dozens of trails used by local residents for recreational purposes.
The PA personal injury victim crashed into a gate suffering a cerebral concussion and multiple fractures requiring surgeries. His parents sued based on the legal theories of negligence and attractive nuisance. The Defendant pled statutory immunity under the Recreational Use of Land and Water Act (RULWA). The RULWA provides immunity for owners of undeveloped land who open that land without charge for recreational use by members of the public.
The Appeals Court noted that the gate was erected to discourage dumpers and/or vandals. There was no evidence to prove ongoing maintenance/improvements to the property. Therefore, the defense of the Recreational Use of Land and Water Act was appropriate. Stanton v. Lackawanna Energy LTD, 951 A.2d 1181 (PA Super. 2008)
***********************
Court Upholds Contract
Exclusion for Drivers of
Loaner Cars
A 2009 ruling of the PA Superior Court denied the ability of a Pennsylvania personal injury victim to obtain an additional recovery from an excess automobile insurance policy. A woman was rear-ended by a drunk driver who was driving a service loaner car from an auto dealership. The insurance company paid its policy limit.
The Pennsylvania car accident attorney filed suit versus the car dealership and its insurance company. He claimed that his client should be able to make a recovery against the dealership's excess insurance coverage. The Wyoming County PA trial judge ruled that the exclusion in the excess policy for drivers of loaner cars was clear and unambiguous. The Appeals Court affirmed this decision. Kropa v. Gateway Ford, 974 A.2d 502 (PA Super. 2009)
***********************
Insurance Company Doctor
Can Testify for Car Accident
Victim
A 2009 Decision by the PA Superior Court affirmed a Chester County jury's verdict in favor of a Pennsylvania car accident victim. A woman was slowing down for traffic when she was rear-ended and then crashed into the car in front of her. She was treated for back injuries which she and her doctor felt were permanent.
The PA car crash victim received a favorable Arbitration Award. The Defendant's attorney filed an Appeal and the case was heard by a jury. Her Pennsylvania personal injury lawyer presented the testimony of a chiropractor who had examined her at the request of the Defendant's insurance company. This doctor's testimony supported the conclusions of the treating doctor and the victim received a large verdict.
An Appeal was taken to the Pennsylvania Superior Court claiming that it was an error for the Trial Court to permit the doctor hired by the insurance company to testify for the car accident victim. Since the victim's attorney did not discuss the case with the doctor before his voluntary testimony, there was no disclosure of expert-client communications and the Appeal was denied. Dolan v. Fissell, 973 A.2d 1009 (PA Super. 2009)
***********************
Limited Tort Plaintiff
Proceeds to Jury Trial
A 2009 ruling by the Court of Common Pleas of Mercer County PA denied the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment and permitted the personal injury claim of a limited tort victim to proceed to trial. The negligent Defendant rear-ended the Plaintiff's car. The Defendant's lawyers argued that the Pennsylvania car crash victim had not sustained a serious bodily injury and, therefore, could not overcome her selection of the limited tort option.
The PA car accident victim's attorney filed a medical expert report and medical records claiming that his client suffered from a protruding disc in her neck and a bulging disc in her lumbar spine. Her treating doctor offered an opinion that these injuries prevented her from participating in athletics, as well as bending, stooping, standing or sitting for prolonged periods of time. These significant impairments were alleged to be permanent. The Trial Judge ruled that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding the car accident victim's injuries which would be resolved in the trial by jury. Tritt v. Ruley, et al., 31 Mercer Co. L. J. 6 (2009)
***********************
Carbon County Driver Fails
to Prove Damages
A 2009 decision by President Judge Rodger Nanovic of the Carbon County Court of Common Pleas affirmed a jury verdict in favor of the Defendant and against the Pennsylvania personal injury claimant. Two motor vehicles were traveling on Mahoning Street in Lehighton PA when the Defendant rear-ended the Plaintiff's van. Although the jury found that the Defendant was negligent, it ruled that the negligence did not result in any compensable injuries to the driver of the van.
The evidence showed that the Carbon County car accident victim denied any injury at the scene. He also waited until 3 weeks after the crash to receive his first medical care. At trial he admitted that he was involved in a second car accident soon after the 1st crash. He also later fell down 14 steps. Both of those incidents resulted in medical care being provided. His treating doctor admitted that the MRI's did not show any bulges or herniations from the Lehighton auto accident. The personal injury claimant failed to comply with the recommended medical treatment and only saw a doctor recommended by his attorney.
In the cross examination of the Plaintiff's expert, he admitted that his patient had seen a pain management specialist 16 days before the 1st crash for prior injuries which included left leg nerve damage and a lumbar spine operation requiring the installation of rods to support the low back. The Carbon County Trial Judge ruled that there was ample evidence to support the jury's decision that the Plaintiff had not met his burden of proof regarding his damage claim relating to the Lehighton car accident. Righter v. Walter, Court of Common Pleas Carbon County PA, No. 04-0699 (March 12, 2009)
***********************
Philadelphia Not Responsible
for State Highway
A 2009 Opinion of the PA Commonwealth Court reversed a Philadelphia County Decision in favor of a personal injury victim. A woman was crossing the street in Center City Philadelphia when she tripped and fell on a raised portion of the road. Various companies had performed construction work at the area of the accident. Unfortunately, the road was not leveled off after the project was completed.
The Pennsylvania personal injury victim suffered serious injuries to her leg. Her attorney settled her claims versus the companies that performed the work and went to a non-jury trial versus the City of Philadelphia. The trial judge ruled in favor of the pedestrian. The Appeals Court overturned this Decision since the street was a state highway. There was no written contract between the city and Penn DOT requiring Philadelphia to repair and maintain the roadway. Leiphart v. City of Philadelphia, 972 A.2d 1239 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009)
***********************
Ice Hockey Injury Victim Gets
Chance to Prove Recklessness
A 2009 Decision of the Pennsylvania Superior Court reversed a trial judge's ruling and ordered that a PA personal injury claim should proceed forward in the litigation. A Dauphin County PA no checking ice hockey league was the scene of a horrible accident. One of the players was checked into the boards. He sustained a badly fractured leg which required several surgeries and left him with permanent injuries and scarring.
His Pennsylvania personal injury attorney filed a lawsuit alleging that the Defendant's conduct went well beyond mere negligence and the risks assumed by the players on the ice. The Dauphin County Court of Common Pleas granted the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. The Appeals Court overruled the decision. The Pennsylvania personal injury victim was given the opportunity to present evidence to a jury that the Defendant breached a duty owed to his fellow player and that his actions were reckless. Archibald v. Kemble, 971 A.2d 513 (Pa. Super. 2009)
***********************
Community Association Not
Liable to Carbon County
Dog Bite Victim
The Pennsylvania Dog Law was clarified in a June 2008 ruling by the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. A Carbon County PA dog bite victim was standing outside of his home when he was attacked by his neighbors' pit bulls. His Pennsylvania dog bite attorney filed suit against the dog owners and the community association that operated the private community.
The Carbon County trial judge ruled against the Jim Thorpe PA dog bite victim and dismissed the lawsuit versus the association. The lawyers representing the association successfully argued that their client could not remove nor confine the dogs and had no legal authority to take possession of the dog owners' home.
The Pennsylvania dog bite lawyer appealed the decision. The PA Commonwealth Court ruled that the community association did not have the power to enforce the PA Dog Law and affirmed the Carbon County Trial Court decision. The personal injury victim's sole source of compensation was against the homeowner's insurance policy of the dog owners. McMahan v. Pleasant Valley West Ass'n, 952 A.2d 731 (PA Cmwlth. 2008)
***********************
Monroe County Tubing
Accident Lawsuit to Trial
A Pennsylvania personal injury victim was able to proceed with her lawsuit versus a Monroe County PA ski resort as a result of a September 2008 legal decision of the PA Superior Court. A mother and her children went to the Poconos to go snow tubing at Camelback. They were using the family tubing slopes and at the end of their run, the woman stood up and was struck by another snow tube. The Pennsylvania personal injury victim suffered numerous comminuted fractures of her leg which required surgery.
The Pennsylvania personal injury attorney filed a lawsuit against Camelback Ski Corporation alleging that their employees had acted recklessly. The defense lawyer filed a Motion for Summary Judgment with the Court of Common Pleas of Monroe County demanding a dismissal of the legal action vs. Camelback. The defense claimed that a signed release and language on the back side of the lift ticket should result in the dismissal of the personal injury lawsuit.
The Pennsylvania Superior Court reversed the decision by Judge Arthur Zulick in favor of Camelback. The Appeals Court stated that the release form did not prevent a lawsuit versus the Monroe County business since reckless conduct by an employee was not specifically discussed in the release. The PA Superior Court pointed out that the lift ticket language was so small that it was nearly illegible and the PA personal injury victim stated that she did not read it prior to her accident. Tayar v. Camelback Ski Corp., 957 A.2d 281 (Pa. Super. 2008)
***********************
Sovereign Immunity Denies
Claim Despite Lack of
Guardrails
A 2009 Opinion of the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania upheld a trial judge's decision to dismiss a Pennsylvania car accident claim. A teenager was driving a car which left the highway and crashed into a tree. She died as a result of the crash. A Pennsylvania car crash lawyer filed a wrongful death claim against Penn DOT and another occupant of the automobile.
The defense attorney filed a Motion for Summary Judgment which was granted by the Somerset County Court of Common Pleas. Since the victim's Estate could not prove that a dangerous condition of the highway itself caused the car to leave the roadway, sovereign immunity prevented a claim against Penn DOT from succeeding.
The Pennsylvania personal injury attorney filed an appeal arguing that PennDOT's failure to have guardrails or reflective markings on the shoulder of the road contributed to the cause of the crash. The Commonwealth Court ruled that the Estate of the Pennsylvania car crash victim did not present facts sufficient to meet the real estate exception to sovereign immunity. Pritts v. Comm. Dept. of Transp., 969 A.2d 1 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2009)
***********************
Court Broadens Definition of
"Owner" in Dog Bite
Attack Case
The issue faced by some Pennsylvania dog bite victims is the inability to prove that the actual owner of the dog was in control of it during the time of the dog bite attack. A 2006 decision of the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania confirmed the broad scope of the word "owner" as defined by the PA Dog Law. The defendant was charged with multiple violations of the PA Dog Law even though she was not the registered owner.
The trial evidence proved that she was feeding & caring for the dogs and permitted them to remain on her property. The Appeals Court upheld her conviction of violating the PA Dog Law because of her control over the dogs.
Frequently people who are not the registered owners of dogs walk or look after a neighbor's dog. If a Pennsylvania dog bite attack occurs in that situation, the dog owner could claim that he has no legal responsibility for the victim's injuries since he wasn't in control of the dog at the time of the attack. This legal decision provides a PA dog bite victim with the ability to obtain fair compensation for their injuries from the insurance company representing the individual actually in control of the dog when the attack occurred. Comm. v. Lopez, 908 A.2d 991 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006)
***********************
Employee's P.I. Claim v.
Co-Worker Denied After
Car Crash
A December 2008 Opinion of the Superior Court of Pennsylvania clarified the circumstances when an employee can make a PA personal injury claim against a fellow employee after a car accident. Two employees of a Montgomery County PA business used a company pick-up truck to drive to Baltimore to make repairs at a work site. After leaving the job, they stopped for dinner and both employees drank beer.
On the return trip to Pennsylvania, the driver lost control of the pick-up truck. The crash caused the passenger to sustain serious head injuries. The Pennsylvania car accident lawyer filed a lawsuit versus the driver in Philadelphia. The trial judge held that the driver's actions in driving back to PA were work related for his employer's benefit. Therefore, the co-employee was barred by the Pennsylvania Workers' Compensation Act from making a PA personal injury claim.
The Pennsylvania car crash lawyer filed an appeal. The Superior Court confirmed that Worker's Compensation benefits are the only remedy available to employees injured in a car accident due to the negligence of a co-employee while in the course and scope of their employment. The Court did not grant an exception to the Pennsylvania car crash victim since the driver was not convicted of DUI and no proof was provided that the alleged intoxication caused the collision. EMC v. Boiler Erection, 964 A.2d 381 (Pa. Super. 2008)
***********************
Bucks County Car Accident
Victim Can't Prove Real
Estate Exception
A December 2008 ruling by the PA Commonwealth Court affirmed a Bucks County PA Trial Court ruling denying the claim of a Pennsylvania car accident victim. A woman was driving an automobile on Street Road in Bucks County during a summer storm. A tree branch that was overhanging the roadway fell on her car and crushed the roof.
Her son was in the passenger seat and suffered a spinal cord injury which made him a paraplegic. His Pennsylvania personal injury lawyer filed a lawsuit in Bucks County PA against PennDot claiming that it negligently permitted a decaying tree to have a large branch overhang its right-of-way for Street Road.
The Bucks County jury was presented with the PA auto accident victim's evidence. The trial judge granted PennDot's Motion to Dismiss the case because the tree trunk was not located on property owned or controlled by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The Appeals Court agreed that the Plaintiff had not proved that there was a real estate exception to the sovereign immunity protection granted by Statute to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Clark v. PennDot, 962 A.2d 692 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008)
