CIVIL VERDICTS - PREMISES LIABILITY * Estate of Joan DeMarco v. The Marquis - Decedent business tenant of apartment/office complex owner murdered by former employee of defendant in violent assault during office burglary. Plaintiff's estate alleged negligent security theory of liability against defendant. Settlement negotiated with responsible insurance company in excess of One Million Two Hundred Thousand ($1,200,000.00) Dollars prior to trial. * Khaled Bakar v. Home Properties, Inc. - Plaintiff was standing on third floor balcony of friend's apartment owned by defendant, when the floor suddenly collapsed causing plaintiff to fall to ground. Plaintiff sustained fractured ribs, non-displaced tibia fracture and herniated disc, which was treated with physical therapy and multiple epidural injections. Montgomery County jury returned a verdict in the amount of Seven Hundred and Sixty Nine Thousand ($769,000.00) Dollars. Plaintiff filed Motion for Delay Damages which was granted and case was settled for Nine Hundred Thousand ($900,000.00) Dollars. * CIVIL VERDICTS - AUTOMOBILE ACCIDENTS * Riccardo v. Kim - Plaintiff sustained fractured cervical vertebrae at C5-6 level which required two surgeries and metal screws, arising from a two vehicle automobile accident. Out-of-court settlement negotiated with responsible insurance carriers in amount of Four Hundred Thousand ($400,000.00) Dollars prior to trial. * Estate of Robert Kane v. Joseph Falco - Decedent killed while passenger in one-car accident where intoxicated driver lost control of vehicle. Wrongful death claim settlement negotiated with responsible insurance company in the amount of Six Hundred and Sixty Thousand ($660,000.00) Dollars prior to trial. * Vinnie Moss v. Baldi Transportation/Erie Insurance Company - Plaintiff awarded Two Hundred Thirty Five Thousand ($235,000.00) Dollars by jury after trial. Defendant trucking company bankrupt and uninsured. Uninsured motorist claim settlement negotiated with plaintiff's insurance company in the amount of Two Hundred Thousand ($200,00.00) Dollars. * CIVIL VERDICTS - LIQUOR LIABILITY * Gerald & Irene Kane v. Dublin Wine and Spirits and Commonwealth of PA - Plaintiff husband and wife sustained multiple injuries in head-on collision with drunk driver. Husband-plaintiff sustained head injury resulting in brain hemorrhage and coma, with substantial recovery. Wife-plaintiff sustained broken ankle. Out-of-court settlement successfully negotiated against defendants prior to trial. Husband's claim - Two Hundred Forty Thousand ($240,000.00) Dollars. Wife's claim - Ninety Thousand ($90,000.00) Dollars. (Bucks County)* Edward Pisarek v. Adriatric Club - Plaintiff police officer assaulted while on duty by intoxicated bar patron skilled in martial arts. Plaintiff sustained permanent partial hearing loss and multiple lacerations. Non-jury trial verdict in favor of plaintiff and against defendant in amount of One Hundred Fifty Thousand ($150,000.00) Dollars. (Philadelphia County) CIVIL VERDICTS - PRODUCT LIABILITY* Keith Rosenberger v. Galoob Toys, Inc. - Plaintiff sustained temporary partial loss of vision in one eye with increased risk of future glaucoma, when struck in eye by defendants' children's toy, while plaintiff demonstrated newly purchased toy for child. Out-of-court settlement successfully negotiated against defendants in the amount of One Hundred Fifty Thousand ($150,000.00) Dollars prior to trial. (Montgomery County)* Raymond Cost v. Caterpillar, Inc. - Plaintiff sustained partial amputation of his lower leg, when his foot was crushed in an unguarded pinchpoint of rotating couplings inside engine area, while plaintiff was performing maintenance of defendant's heavy trash compactor/metal shearer. Out-of-court settlement successfully negotiated against defendant in the amount of Four Hundred Seventy Five Thousand ($475,000.00) Dollars prior to trial. (Montgomery County)

Field sobriety tests are commonly utilized by police officers in DUI Investigations.

These physical coordination and agility tests are not objective, but rather inherently subjective based on the particular police officer investigating the suspect. Moreover, the suspect’s level of physical athleticism, prior medical issues and physical condition of tests’situs is not factored into the test performance. The tests are simply pass or fail subject to the police officer’s discretion.

Nonetheless, field sobriety tests are heavily relied upon by police and prosecutors in DUI prosecutions despite their unreliability and subjective elements. A vigorous DUI defense must aggressively focusing on neutralizing the impact of police officer testimony concerning field sobriety tests and conclusions.

Chemical Testing Evidence

In the state of Pennsylvania, police investigating DUI cases can obtain Blood Alcohol Content (BAC) evidence through either a drawn blood sample or breathalyzer test. A blood test result is generally more accurate and less subject to police error than breathalyzer testing. Breathalyzer test results are not admissible in court UNLESS the police can establish the following foundation of admissibility:

  1. the breathalyzer machine must be an approved testing device under the Pennsylvania Bulletin;
  2. the breathalyzer device must have been properly calibrated within one year of the administration of the test;
  3. the breathalyzer device must have been tested for accuracy with one month of the administraton of the test;
  4. the operator of the breathalyzer device must be properly certified to administer the testing utilizing the particular device; and
  5. the suspect must be continually observed for a period of at least twenty minutes not eat or drink anything prior to testing.

Mr. McMahon has successfully achieved exclusion of BAC chemical test results in DUI cases, where the police have failed to properly fulfill these strict requirements for the legal admissibility this evidence.

See Mr. McMahon’s PA DUI Attorney track record >>
(Twelve recent decisions, 100% Not-Guilty)

The information contained herein should not be used as a substitute for personal legal advice. You should contact the Law Offices of McMahon, McMahon & Lentz to schedule a Consultation with an attorney who will speak to you regarding your specific situation.