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)

Pennsylvania Ban on Texting While Driving Enforced

Post by Brooks T. Thompson on June 29, 2012

 

What Does The Texting Ban Mean to the Philadelphia Accident Lawyer?

As Philadelphia accident lawyers, our firm is keenly aware of the devastation caused by distracted driving. Texting while driving is not only dangerous, in Pennsylvania it may now also land you in trouble with the police. On June 8, 2012, a woman in Washington County was one of the first people charged with violating Pennsylvania’s new texting while driving ban, a law indexed at 75 Pa. C.S. §3316. She ultimately pled guilty to the charge on June 14, 2012 and was sentenced to pay a fine of $50.00 (Fifty Dollars). The new ban on texting while driving went into effect on March 8, 2012, and it prohibits a person from reading or writing text based communications while driving. A person who is convicted of such an offense is guilty of a summary offense, punishable by a fine of $50.00 (Fifty Dollars). With such a small penalty and the difficulties inherent in enforcing the law, a Philadelphia accident lawyer ought to be skeptical of the texting ban’s effectiveness in reducing car accidents caused by negligent driving.

Pennsylvania Ban On Texting While Driving Preempts Stricter City Laws On Distracted Driving

In fact, the new legislation is a step back for Philadelphia because the Pennsylvania ban on texting while driving preempts the city’s much stricter distracted driving regulation. Prior to the enactment of the state law, the city of Philadelphia had a local regulation which entirely prohibited the use of a mobile device while driving — unless the driver was using a hands free headset. To the Philadelphia injury lawyer who sees the results of far too many avoidable car accidents caused by negligence, the city’s crackdown was a welcomed restriction. However, the Pennsylvania ban on texting while driving, rendered Philadelphia’s ordinance a nullity. Pursuant to 75 Pa. C.S. §3316(e), the statewide ban on texting while driving preempts any local ordinances on the subject. Because the Pennsylvania ban on texting while driving specifically permits dialing and talking on a mobile device, Philadelphia’s strict distracted driving law is now a thing of the past.

A Philadelphia Injury Lawyer May Use a Violation Of New Law to Establish Per Se Negligence

As Philadelphia injury lawyers, we strongly oppose the use of a mobile device for any purpose while driving in Philadelphia or elsewhere. For that reason we find that across Pennsylvania, the new legislation is a good thing. But there is also an additional reason why the Philadelphia injury lawyer might welcome the enactment of the statewide ban on texting while driving. Proof that a driver violated the law might just be the key to winning the next big car accident case. As any good Philadelphia injury lawyer should know, where an accident involves a violation of a statute or regulation, the courts will sometimes construe that violation of a statute as negligence per se in a car accident case. According to Section 286 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts (1965), a statute will be adopted as the governing standard of care if: (1) the statute was intended to protect the class of persons to which the plaintiff (i.e. victim of car accident) belongs and (2) was intended to protect the interest that the defendant’s conduct invaded from the harm that the plaintiff in fact suffered. While the texting ban has yet to be interpreted by the Pennsylvania courts in such a context, a good Philadelphia injury lawyer should argue that the new ban on texting while driving establishes the governing standard of care, and that therefore a violation of its provisions constitutes negligence per se on the part of the other driver. Thus, if you were involved in a car accident and the other driver was reading or writing a text message, you should contact a Philadelphia Injury Lawyer today to explain!

 

 

Filed under: Distracted Driving, Philadelphia Accident Lawyer, Philadelphia Injury Lawyer, Texting While Driving · Tags: , , , ,
Leave a Reply