Welcome

PA Personal Injury
Legal Decisions

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 PennDOT 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 PennDOT 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)

***********************

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)

*********************** 

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)

***********************

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 overhand 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) 

***********************

A 2008 published decision of the Pennsylvania Superior Court allowed a slip & fall victim to proceed with her claim against a negligent property owner.  A store employee was walking to her car in the parking lot when she slipped and fell.  Her Pennsylvania slip and fall lawyer filed a lawsuit against the property owner.  He claimed that the Defendant was negligent by allowing water run-off, as well as snow and ice to build up in a depression in the parking lot.

The trial judge dismissed the claim by ruling that the property owner was a landlord out-of-possession of the premises and not responsible for any injuries suffered by the personal injury victim.  Her PA slip & fall attorney filed an appeal.  The PA Superior Court reversed the lower court decision.

Specific contract language in the lease between the landlord and the victim's employer stated that the tenant could not make any structural repairs or alterations without the landlord's consent.  This contract clause required a jury to hear the Pennsylvania slip & fall victim's trial evidence to decide if the landlord exercised control over the parking lot and, thus, was responsible to make all necessary repairs.  Jones v. Levin, 940 A.2d 451 (Pa. Super. 2007) 

***********************  

The Pennsylvania Superior Court issued an important ruling in 2008 which expanded the rights of PA dog bite attack victims.  Two pit bulls got loose and attacked a child.  Two passersby attempted to save the young girl from further harm and they too became dog bite victims.  Their Pennsylvania dog bite lawyers filed a lawsuit and the case went to trial.

The dog owner's lawyer claimed that his client was not liable due to the "one-free-bite" defense.  He alleged that there was no proof of prior vicious propensities.  The PA Superior Court agreed with the trial judge that the recent amendments to the Pennsylvania Dog Law eliminated the one-free-bite defense.  The jury was entitled to review all of the facts of the dog attack itself to decide whether the pit bulls displayed vicious propensities.  Underwood Ex Rel. Underwood v. Wind, 954 A.2d 1199 (Pa. Super. 2008)  

*********************** 

A December 2008 Opinion of the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania reinstated a lawsuit filed by a Lehigh Valley resident against the City of Bethlehem.  The homeowner filed a complaint in Lehigh County alleging that Bethlehem had failed to properly repair, maintain and upgrade its sewer system.  The lower level of her home was flooded with raw sewage and storm water during a major rainstorm.

The Lehigh County Trial Judge dismissed the Bethlehem resident's case based upon the legal doctrine of governmental immunity.  Her Lehigh Valley attorney appealed the decision.  The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania ruled that there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the City of Bethlehem's negligent maintenance of the sewer system caused the property damage and reversed the Trial Court's decision.  McCarthy v. City of Bethlehem, 962 A.2d 1276 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008)

Exclusively representing physically injured victims in the Pocono Mountains, Lehigh Valley, Slate Belt and Southeastern PA in Monroe County, Northampton County, Lehigh County, Bucks County, Montgomery County, Pike County, Carbon County and Berks County as well as the communities of Allentown 18101, 18102, 18103, 18104, 18105, 18106, 18109, 18195, Bangor 18010, 18013, 18050, Bath 18014, Bethlehem 18015, 18016, 18017, 18018, 18020, Bethlehem Twp., Brodheadsville 18322, Bushkill 18324, 18371, 18373, Bushkill Falls, Bushkill Twp., Chalfont 18914, Doylestown 18901, 18933, Doylestown Twp., East Stroudsburg 18301, Easton 18040, 18042, 18043, 18044, 18045, Emmaus 18049, Harleysville 19438, Hellertown 18055, Jim Thorpe 18229, Kunkletown 18058, Kutztown 19530, Lake Harmony 18624, Lansdale 19446, Lehighton 18235, Macungie 18062, Marshalls Creek 18335, Mertztown 19539, Montgomeryville 18936, Mount Pocono 18344, Nazareth 18064, Northampton 18067, Palmerton 18071, Pen Argyl 18072, Perkasie 18944, Quakertown 18951, Saylorsburg 18353, Sellersville 18960, Slatington 18080, Souderton 18964, Stroudsburg 18360, Tobyhanna 18466, Walnutport 18088, Whitehall 18052 and Wind Gap 18091.