Resources

  With hunting season upon us, I am reminded that I have killed more deer with a car than I have with a rifle. Today there are an estimated 1.5 million deer in Pennsylvania and November is the month most likely to have a deer-related collision. Last year in Pennsylvania alone there were 141,000 deer/vehicle crashes, which represented almost 10 percent of all deer related claims in the entire country. Only in West Virginia and Montana do you have a greater chance of striking a deer with your vehicle. So what can you do to be safer on the road during this season? Here are six tips. 1) Remember that deer travel in groups. If one deer successfully crosses the road in front of you, be sure to be looking for others that are soon to follow. Most people miss the first deer they see and hit the second one. 2) Travel with a heightened state of awareness during this season. While deer cross roads at all hours of the day, they are more active at dusk and at dawn. If you are traveling when it is dark, use your high-beams as much as possible in order to see as much of the sides of the roadway as possible. Be aware of areas where you have seen deer before, as deer often travel the same pathways. 3) If you see a deer crossing sign, know that the sign was installed by PennDOT because of prior reported collisions with deer on […]

Read More

Negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED) claims are often asserted as supplementary claims in the personal injury context, in Pennsylvania and elsewhere.  For example, if you are injured in a car accident and your relative is killed in the seat next to you, then you could bring a number of different claims against the defendant-driver, including a standard injury cause of action as well as one that is tied to the emotional distress you suffered as a result of the accident. Many first-time plaintiffs are not fully aware of how NIED claims work, however.  Let’s explore some of the basics for clarity. Basics of an NIED Claim In Pennsylvania, plaintiffs may be entitled to damages if they suffer severe emotional distress due to an accident that was caused by the defendant’s negligent acts.  There are a number of specific rules and exceptions that define NIED liability.  Consider the following. Physical Impact Rule Traditionally, Pennsylvania law required (by default) that the NIED plaintiff also been physically impacted in some way by the defendant.  If the plaintiff only suffered emotional distress, then that would not be enough.  As the law progressed, however, several exceptions were carved out. Zone of Danger Liability Zone of danger liability allows an NIED plaintiff to recover damages if they could reasonably argue that they felt a fear of injury due to being in the “zone of danger” near the point of impact.  For example, if a construction team negligently secured a concrete block and it fell on […]

Read More

  This Sunday morning, at 2 AM, Daylight Savings Time will end. We will move our clocks back one hour. While many will welcome the extra hour of sleep we gain, when Daylight Saving Time ends, many people will find themselves spending more time driving in the dark. According to the National Safety Council, traffic fatalities are 3 times greater at night than during the day. Fatigue, compromised night vision, and impaired drivers are some of the risks we face when driving at night. These risks become especially pronounced moving into the weekend, with fatal crashes peaking on Saturday nights, according to NSC analysis of NHTSA data. Depth perception, color recognition and peripheral vision can be compromised in the dark and the glare of headlights from an oncoming vehicle can temporarily blind a driver. Even with high-beam headlights on, visibility is limited to about 500 feet (250 feet for normal headlights) creating less time to react, especially when driving at higher speeds. Ninety percent of your reaction time depends on your ability to see what’s around you. Since your depth perception, color recognition, and peripheral vision decrease after sundown, your chances for a car accident tend to increase. According to the American Optometric Association, as we age, we have greater difficulty seeing at night. A 50-year-old driver may need twice as much light to see as well as a 30-year-old. At age 60 and older, driving can become even more difficult due to compromised vision as a result of cataracts […]

Read More

If you have sustained injuries in an accident by the negligent or wrongful misconduct of another party, then you may be entitled to compensation pursuant to Pennsylvania law.  It’s worth noting, however, in order to successfully litigate your claim and recover the damages that you’re owed by the defendant, you’ll have to satisfy the “burden of proof” standard applicable to your case. You may have heard of the “burden of proof” concept, but what does it really mean?  Let’s explore some of the basics. What is Burden of Proof as a Concept? In civil or criminal litigation, the burden of proof describes a legal standard necessary to prove the claims being asserted.  As the plaintiff, you are entering the litigation process with the intention of introducing evidence that will prove the truth of your claims — for example, if you were injured in a car accident, you’ll want to introduce evidence that the defendant was texting and driving simultaneously (thus exposing you to an unreasonable risk of injury). The burden of proof is indicative of the dispositive value of the evidence being introduced.  In civil lawsuits, the burden of proof requires that the overall evidence you introduce prove that you are more likely right than wrong.  Evidence must therefore be considered in the context of the applicable burden of proof standard. Understanding the Different Burden of Proof Standards Criminal and civil litigation involve fundamentally different burden of proof standards. In criminal trials, the prosecution must prove that the defendant is […]

Read More

If you’ve been injured in an accident that was caused by someone else, you may have a legitimate claim for damages. However, it’s worth noting that you do not have an unlimited period of time to sue.  In Pennsylvania — and all throughout the country — the applicable statute of limitations sets a deadline by which you must file your claims against the relevant defendants in your case. Many injury victims do not realize the fundamental importance of the statute of limitations deadline.  In many cases, excessive delays can lead to a dismissal of an otherwise legitimate injury claim.  As such, it’s absolutely critical that you get in touch with a qualified Pennsylvania personal injury attorney who can evaluate your claims and bring an action against the defendants in a timely manner. How the Statute of Limitations Works In Pennsylvania, personal injury claims have a statute of limitations period that is currently two years from the date of injury.  If you do not bring an action against the defendants within such time and the deadline passes, then you are deemed to have “abandoned” your claims.  Following that, you will no longer have the right to sue the defendant(s) and recover damages in a Pennsylvania court of law.  Unfortunately, injury victims often ignore the consequences of a delay, perhaps due to the other challenges posed by their injury. For example, suppose that you are seriously injured in a motor vehicle accident.  You may even have suffered lower-body paralysis.  In the wake […]

Read More

If you’ve been injured due to the fault of another person or entity, you may have a claim for damages pursuant to Pennsylvania law.  Litigating your injury claim may seem like a straightforward matter, but depending on the circumstances, you may have to take additional issues into consideration.  These may include the nature of the defendant’s conduct and whether it constitutes mere negligence or recklessness. Reckless Conduct and Punitive Damages In Pennsylvania, reckless conduct is conduct where the defendant demonstrates a “reckless indifference” to the interests of others.  Recklessness requires a mental state in which the defendant consciously disregards the serious risk of danger that they pose to others. Reckless conduct is more than mere negligence.  Whereas negligence requires only the breach of the duty of care (and thus, a heightened risk of injury), reckless conduct generally involves more egregious or outrageous conduct, as well as a mental state in which the defendant knows of the risks they pose to others but — regardless — choose to continue acting recklessly. For example, imagine that you are injured in a motor vehicle accident.  The defendant-driver makes a mistake and enters your lane without signaling, causing a collision.  This is likely to be deemed negligence. Now, imagine another scenario where the defendant-driver is weaving between lanes at a high speed and is also failing to signal.  He or she is well aware of the risk of danger posed to others on the road, but the driver chooses to continue this behavior.  This […]

Read More

In Pennsylvania — and in other jurisdictions throughout the country — injured plaintiffs must act responsibly in the wake of an accident to ensure that their personal injury claims are preserved to the fullest possible extent.  Plaintiffs are not entitled to negligently allow their losses to accumulate without taking action.  There is a broad “duty to mitigate” that requires that plaintiffs exert reasonable efforts to minimize their losses. Comparative Negligence in Pennsylvania Pennsylvania applies comparative negligence principles that allow an injured plaintiff to recover damages as compensation for their various losses, but only if the plaintiff is less negligent than the at-fault defendant. How does this work? Suppose, for example, that you have been injured in a car accident, and your damages total to $100,000.  You were also speeding at the time of the accident, however.  The court determines that you were 30 percent at-fault for your injuries.  Despite your own significant contribution of negligence, you would be entitled to recover the remaining 70 percent of the damages ($70,000).  You should also note that even if fault is deemed to be 50/50, you may still recover damages. On the other hand, if you were deemed 51 percent at-fault, then you would not be entitled to recover any damages. In a personal injury lawsuit, the duty to mitigate is fundamentally linked to the application of comparative negligence principles.  Failure to adequately mitigate damages (in the wake of an accident) constitutes negligence, and depending on the extent of such failure, it might […]

Read More

In Pennsylvania (and throughout the country), injured plaintiffs often worry about whether they are entitled to the compensation they seek.  This is particularly applicable to plaintiffs who have sustained “excessive” losses due to their unique vulnerabilities and fragilities. For example, suppose that you have a condition that makes your spinal column somewhat less rigid, exposing you to a greater risk of paralysis in the event that a significant impact force collides with the spinal column.  You are subsequently paralyzed in a low speed rear-end car accident that causes your weak spinal column to collapse and your spine to be severed. Now, the defendant might feel that it is unfair to impose such significant damages (long-term medical expenses, pain and suffering, loss of earning capacity, etc.) on them when the accident was only minor. Fortunately for you (and perhaps unfortunately for the defendant), the law entitles plaintiffs to be compensated for their losses in full, even if they are suffering from a unique vulnerability that enhances their losses. How does this work?  Let’s take a closer look. Understanding the Fundamentals of Loss and Recovery in the Context of Personal Injury In personal injury law, the defendant may be held liable for the losses suffered for the plaintiff no matter the unique vulnerabilities of that plaintiff — this concept is known as the eggshell skull rule (referencing Humpty Dumpty, naturally!).  Simply put, it is the defendant’s responsibility to shoulder the cost burden of encountering a uniquely vulnerable plaintiff. If this seems unfair, […]

Read More

Trains, buses, and planes all fit into the category of common carriers (under Pennsylvania law, a common carrier is essentially any person or entity that accepts money to transport passengers).  If you’ve been injured while traveling with a common carrier, or in the course of waiting/boarding/etc., then you could be entitled to compensation.  Common carrier regulations require that they provide a safe environment for passengers, and that they exert significant efforts in doing so. Curious about your claims?  Contact Drake, Hileman & Davis, PC to discuss your case with one of our experienced attorneys.  We will evaluate your claims and work with you to identify a winning strategy for securing the compensation you deserve. The Standard of Care for Common Carriers Common carriers are held to the “highest possible” standard of care, though it’s important to note that they are not guarantors of safety.  Put simply, common carriers are expected to take significant precautions to ensure that they do not expose passengers to an unreasonable risk of harm. Importantly, the duty of care for common carriers not only applies to situations centering around the transportation of passengers (i.e., operating the vehicle), but also to the facilities in which passengers are picked up and dropped off as part of their journey. Confused?  Let’s clarify with a brief example. Suppose that you are assaulted at a bus station while waiting for a private coach to pick you up.  You suffer serious injuries as a result and bring an action against the coach […]

Read More

Liability waivers are common in the recreational context and the sporting world, as a means of limiting the financial exposure of those who operate such enterprises.  These waivers often intimidating prospective injury plaintiffs, and for good reason — in Pennsylvania, liability waivers are generally enforceable. If you’ve signed a liability waiver and have been injured, it’s important that you evaluate the situation at-hand more closely.  The circumstances may be such that the waiver will not actually be enforced, so don’t resign yourself to a “lost” case from the beginning. Liability Waivers Must Be Clear and Unambiguous If you signed a liability waivers before engaging in the recreational or sporting activity that ultimately led to your injuries, then Pennsylvania law may prevent you from litigating the claims at-issue — the court may deem the liability waiver valid and enforceable and dismiss your claims on that basis. Fortunately, you may be able to show that the liability waiver — despite the fact that you signed it — is not actually enforceable.  In Pennsylvania, valid and enforceable liability waivers must: Be clearly-written and unambiguous with respect to its function and intent; and Be sufficiently obvious (visually) in the context of the signed contract. So, how might this affect your claims? Suppose that you are injured while attending a horse-riding class.  Before class began, you signed a liability waiver as part of the attendance contract.  The liability waiver language was not clearly-written, however, and used confusing and non-standard language.  Further, the liability waiver language […]

Read More