Philadelphia Personal Injury Lawyer Blog

Police are investigating whether the death of a woman Tuesday evening in North Philadelphia was caused by attacking dogs or by a person.

A man called police around 6:40 p.m. saying he had come home and found several dogs, that were described by the police as pitt bulls, attacking his wife in the 400 block of West Carey Street, police said.

Police responded and secured the dogs in one room. The woman, who was in her 40s, was pronounced dead at the scene. The man, also in his 40s, was being questioned.

At this time police have not confirmed the cause of death.

Source:  The Philadelphia Inquirer Digital, Posted on Tue, Aug. 30, 2011 -Robert Moran 

Multiple deaths are reported each year as a result of the most vicious dog attacks.  Often a dog bite case will result in permanent scarring, nerve damage and a significant risk of infection.   Additionally, the psychological trauma associated with dog attacks can be just as serious as the physical injuries. 

In Pennsylvania, victims of dog attacks are legally entitled to hold a dog's owner responsible for their injuries.  Pennsylvania dog owners have a legal duty to restrain or control their dogs to make sure that the public is safe from harm.  If a dog is not on a leash, was not properly secured on the owner's premises, or if the dog owner knew that the dog was aggressive yet didn't take the proper safety measures to prevent someone from being bitten the dog owner can be held financially liable by a in court. 

Continue reading "Philadelphia woman killed in possible dog attack" »

Be careful of dangerous drop side cribs when shopping for baby furniture online.  The detaching drop side rails have been associated with at least 32 infant deaths since 2000.  Over the past five years, more than 9 million drop-side cribs-which have a side rail that moves up and down so that parents can more easily lift their babies-have been recalled.  Although heightened safety standards no longer allow the manufacture and sale of so-called drop side cribs, unfortunately, shoppers can still find these dangerous products offered for sale on sites like Craigslist and eBay.

The CPSC says there have been a reported 3,520 incidents and injuries, including infants falling from cribs, skull fractures and babies getting their limbs caught between the crib slats from November 1, 2007 to April 11, 2010.  Child injuries and deaths have occurred because furniture was assembled incorrectly or because it had loose, defective or missing hardware.    A child's head can become trapped in small gaps and in between broken slats, causing strangulation.

The CPSC recommends:

• Cribs should have no cutouts in the headboard or footboard.
• The mattress should fit snugly so that a baby's head can't get trapped beneath it.
• Corner posts should not protrude more than 1/16th of an inch, so they can't snag an infant's clothing.

Some online sellers inadvertently list substandard cribs for sale, not realizing that the products were recalled.  Many times these cribs are sold before the host website can take corrective action.  Although it is not illegal to use a dropdown crib in your home, it is important to be aware that these are potentially dangerous products that can kill or seriously injure a baby.   Parents can find more information on how to keep your child safe in their crib, by checking out the CSPC Crib Information Center and the SIDS factsheet from the NIH.

Sources: 

USA Today, "Illegal used cribs still for sale on Craigslist, eBay," Aug. 7, 2011   

CNN Health, "Dangerous drop side cribs no longer for sale," August 9, 2011

It is commonly acknowledged that the use of seat belts saves lives and lessens the risk and extent of injuries suffered in motor vehicle accidents.  Because of the increased safety afforded by the use of seat belts, many states including Pennsylvania have enacted laws requiring occupants of autos and trucks to wear seat belts. 

Seat belt use is required by law in Pennsylvania; however, failure to wear a seatbelt is only a secondary offense.  Since failure to wear a seatbelt is a secondary offense, a motorist cannot be stopped by the police and cited simply for not wearing a seat belt.  

A question commonly asked by my clients is whether they can be found negligent for not wearing a seat belt in their personal injury claim.   In Pennsylvania, the answer is no.  Under Pennsylvania law, failure to wear a seat belt is inadmissible as evidence at trial.  Here is the law. 

75 Pa.C.S. § 4581 (e)   In no event shall a violation or alleged violation of this subchapter be used as evidence in a trial of any civil action; nor shall any jury in a civil action be instructed that any conduct did constitute or could be interpreted by them to constitute a violation of this subchapter; nor shall failure to use a child passenger restraint system, child booster seat or safety seat belt system be considered as contributory negligence nor shall failure to use such a system be admissible as evidence in the trial of any civil action; nor shall this subchapter impose any legal obligation upon or impute any civil liability whatsoever to an owner, employer, manufacturer, dealer or person engaged in the business of renting or leasing vehicles to the public to equip a vehicle with a child passenger restraint system or child booster seat or to have such child passenger restraint system or child booster seat available whenever their vehicle may be used to transport a child.

The condition of a 9-year-old boy from Yardley Pennsylvania who was struck by a hit-and-run driver outside San Francisco's AT&T Park on August 4 has been upgraded from critical to serious condition.

Ryan White had been visiting family in the Bay Area and was leaving the Phillies-Giants game last Thursday evening when he was hit by a driver going the wrong way on the street he was crossing.  White was allegedly hit by Vargas' pickup truck as he was walking in a crosswalk with his family a few blocks from AT&T Park.  The boy suffered fractures to his pelvis, left leg and ankle, a laceration to his liver and a traumatic brain injury that is slowly improving.  

Andrew Alan Vargas, 21, was charged Monday with two counts of drunken driving causing injury and one count of hit-and-run.  He was scheduled to be arraigned Tuesday.  Source:  The Philadelphia Inquirer, Posted on Tue, Aug. 9, 2011.

Every single injury and death caused by drunk driving is totally preventable.  Although the proportion of crashes that are alcohol-related has decreased dramatically in recent years, there are still far too many of these preventable accidents.  Unfortunately, in spite of great progress, alcohol-impaired driving remains a serious national problem that tragically affects thousands of victims annually.

In Pennsylvania, drunk driving is one of the classic instances where punitive damages can be assessed in motor vehicle accidents.   The Pennsylvania Superior Court has held that "driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, with its very great potential for harm and serious injury, may under certain circumstances be deemed "outrageous conduct" and a reckless indifference to the interests of others sufficient to allow the imposition of punitive damages."

I have experience representing victims who have been seriously injured by drunk drivers.  Call me for a free no obligation consultation at 267-443-8487.

Mediation is a tool plaintiff's lawyers should consider using to resolve a case fairly and quickly.  My experience is that too often since the mediation process is so different from the familiar course of litigation, lawyers are often hesitant to go down this path.  Instead, we hold course, as we have grown accustomed to the frustrations of the litigation process. 

Although mediation may not be the answer to all cases, it can be attractive in certain instances.  One such instance is when there are multiple parties and claims.  In such cases, you may not be able to get resolution to your client's "cut and dry" case because of problems with claims from other parties.  Here, mediation may be a much faster process than civil litigation.  It allows the opportunity for parties to work together and reach a settlement without the frustration of litigation. 

Another scenario where mediation may be useful is when a party's injuries are clear, but liability is disputed.    An experienced mediator can address the issues in dispute and help parties find a common ground.   Because both parties have taken a stance on who has the better side of the liability argument, a mediator is helpful in underscoring to the plaintiff the chances of defense verdict and to the defendant that because of the substantial damages, the there is real value in the case, even if liability is questionable. 

Critics of mediation claim that the process may not be advantageous to plaintiffs due to an imbalance of power or because emotions that may be elicited in the courtroom are less likely to sway a weathered mediator.  To the contrary, the right mediator can help point out strengths and weaknesses in the case and bring both parties down to earth.   Although mediation is less likely to succeed if parties are extremely hostile or not motivated to settle, this is usually a minority of cases.  

The next time you have a case that just won't settle, why not try mediation?  You may be pleasantly surprised with the result! 

In Pennsylvania, "Financial responsibility" is the ability to respond in damages for liability in the amount of $15,000 because of injury to one person in any one accident, in the amount of $30,000 because of injury to two or more persons in any one accident and in the amount of $5,000 because of damage to property of others in any one accident.   These limits have remained the same since October 1, 1984 when the No-Fault Motor Vehicle Insurance Act was replaced by 75 Pennsylvania consolidated statutes (Pa. C.S.) Chapter 17.

Although the cost of medical care has increased on average at 4.3% per annum for the last 20 years, minimum coverage for automobile insurance has remained the same.  Nowadays, coverage of $15,000 barely covers medicals bills for injured persons needing medical treatment after an accident, and falls embarrassingly short for accident victims that suffer serious injury.   Hardly a week goes by in my practice that I don't see a seriously injured client left high and dry because a negligent driver has insufficient liability insurance to cover the damages he caused. 

Recently, at the urging of Governor Corporate and Pennsylvania House Republicans, the Pennsylvania Legislature abolished the longstanding doctrine of joint and several liability.  Thus, a joint tortfeasor with sufficient insurance may not be required to cover damages caused to an innocent victim.  The repeal of joint and several liability should be a wakeup call to every trial lawyer in Pennsylvania.  Powerful insurance lobbyists will continue to take aim at our clients if we do not stand up for their interests.

It's time to call on the Pennsylvania legislature to raise the minimum coverage from $15,000 to $30,000 for injury to one person in any one accident, or $60,000 (up from $30,000) for injury to two or more persons in any one accident.    This action is vital to the interests of Pennsylvania drivers and anyone with an auto insurance policy. 

Postoperative visual loss (POVL) is a complication that may cause vision loss or total blindness after major surgical procedures such as spine surgery.  Postoperative visual loss is probably multifactorial, however, patients with a large amount of blood loss producing hypotension and anemia along with prolonged operative times have greater risk of developing visual disturbances.  POVL is not only severe, but it occurs frequently enough that lawyers should be familiar with it. 

In recent studies spinal surgery has replaced cardiac surgery as a leading cause of postoperative vision loss.  Estimates of the incidence of POVL after spinal surgery range from 0.028 to 0.2%, but with advances in complex spinal instrumentation and the rise in annual spinal operations, POVL may see an increase in its incidence. See Journal of Neurosurgery.  

Many factors interact to cause PVOL, but the most important involve the body's ability to carry and deliver oxygen to tissues in the optic nerve.  Often, POVL occurs when anesthesiologists fail to maintain blood pressure and blood status during a long surgical procedure, such as spinal surgery.  When a patient loses a large amount of blood during a surgical procedure, non-blood fluids are used to maintain the patient's blood pressure.  When low arterial blood pressure, diluted blood, and increased venous and tissue pressures are maintained for a long time, the body cannot deliver sufficient amounts of oxygen to the optic nerve and may cause permanent visual loss. 

Physicians may be held liable for POVL if their treatment falls below the standard of care.   Although the risk of POVL cannot be eliminated, the risks of POVL is greatly reduced in surgeries that last less than six hours and involve less than a liter of blood loss.   What's more, physicians have a duty to inform the patient that visual loss is a risk prior to undergoing surgery.   A physician may be held liable for damages caused if they fail to obtain a patients informed consent.

If you have suffered POVL as a result of a surgical procedure, call me for a free no obligation consultation.  267-443-8487