 |
|
Archive for July, 2011
Thursday, July 21st, 2011
This week I was retained to represent a young man who was badly injured while riding his motorcycle. A car recklessly changed lanes into my client causing him to crash into a parked car. My client is now paralyzed in his right arm and had to have multiple surgeries to repair organ damage. The passenger that was on the back of the bike did not survive. This tragedy was compounded when I learned that my client did not elect to carry any under-insured motorist coverage. The only avenue that he has to recover is the drivers insurance. Unfortunately, the driver had the state minimum coverage and my client is now left with a maximum recovery of fifteen thousand dollars. This will not even dent the enormous medical bills he has accumulated up to this point, let alone the future medical bills and lost income.
As an experienced Philadelphia personal injury lawyer I have seen this occur far to often. Most of the time it occurs in motorcycle accidents because these accidents generally tend to be very serious. I can not stress how important it is for motorcycle riders to get as much under-insured coverage as they can afford. The price of the insurance is nominal in comparison to the protection it provides.
Tags: coverage, Injury, lawyers, Motorcycle, Motorcycle Accidents, philadelphia, underinsured
Posted in Car Insurance, Motorcycle Accidents | No Comments »
Tuesday, July 12th, 2011
When you are injured at the workplace you may be entitled to workers compensation, but you may have additional claims that may be worth much more than your workers compensation claim.
Example 1: You work on a construction site and you are using a nail gun. While you are using the nail gun, the gun misfires and sends the nail backwards through the back of the gun. The nail hits you in the eye and you are permanently disabled and cannot ever work again.
In example 1, you obviously have a workers compensation claim against your employer because you were injured while on the job, but you also have a products liability case where you can sue the manufacturer of the nail gun because the product was defective.
Example 2: You work as a delivery person. You deliver bread to grocery stores. You exit your delivery truck, retrieve your bread from the rear of the truck. You begin to walk into the grocery store and you slip and fall on ice right outside of the main entrance of the grocery store. Due to the injury, you are permanently disabled and can no longer work.
In example 2, you obviously have a workers compensation claim against your employer, but you also have a slip and fall case grounded in a general negligence theory against the owner of the grocery store.
The point of these examples is that an experienced lawyer, like the attorneys at the Philadelphia, PA personal injury law firm of Levin & Zeiger LLP can help you navigate through any of the murky waters that may arise in your workers compensation case. Contact us now to get started for a free consultation at 215.825.5183.
Tags: construction site accident, lawyer, personal injury, philadelphia, prodcuts liability, slip and fall, workers compensation
Posted in construction site accident, products liability, slip and fall, workers compensation | No Comments »
Friday, July 8th, 2011
A common misconception in Pennsylvania Dog Bite Law is that the dog and dog owner are entitled to one free bite and cannot be sued for the first bite. This is not at all the law. Our dog bite lawyers understand that general negligence stemming from a dog bite injury has absolutely nothing to do with the how many times the dog has previously bitten, attacked, or injured.
The first time a dog bites someone, the dog owner can be sued under a general negligence theory, including but not limited to and strict liability or negligence per se claims based on the jurisdiction. For example, if your jurisdiction, like Philadelphia, has a leash law. If the bite occurred on a public street in Philadelphia and the dog was not properly leashed, you could sue under a general negligence theory and as a violation of the leash law.
However, in the scenarios presented above, you cannot ask for punitive damages because the dog was not a known dangerous dog. In a sense an argument can me made that this is a free bite because punitive damages are generally much higher then compensatory damages in most dog bite cases.
If the dog has previously bitten,attacked or injured, you can sue for all of the above claims for your dog bite injuries plus punitive damages because the dog is a known dangerous dog. You must be able to show that the dog previously bit or attacked with proof from animal control or another source in order to qualify the dog as a dangerous dog.
Whether the dog has previously bitten only matters in terms of damages, meaning how much money your case is potentially worth. However, whether there exists a previous bite is irrelevant for establishing liability in a general dog bite case.
Tags: attack, damages, dog bite, free bite, leash law, negligence, previous bite, punitive, punitive damages, second bite
Posted in Dog Bite Attacks, Uncategorized | No Comments »
Wednesday, July 6th, 2011
We often get questions from passengers in motor vehicles about fault. For example, the client is a passenger in a car where the driver of the car is the person who is at fault in the car accident. People often think they don’t have a case because they are in the car where the driver is at fault and they are in that car.
Why not sue the driver in the car you are in? Potential clients think that they can’t sue the driver of the car they are in, because its the car they are in. This makes no sense. A person can absolutely sue under any of these circumstances because they are not the person at fault in the car accident. This concept may seem straight forward, but it can be very confusing to many folks.
If you were in injured in a car accident, and you are not the person at fault, contact us at 215.825.5183 for a free consultation and our insurance law attorneys will advise you as to what we can do for you regardless of where you were sitting in the car.
Tags: accident, car insurance, driver, fault, insurance law, passenger
Posted in car accidents, Car Insurance, insurance law | No Comments »
Tuesday, July 5th, 2011
Potential clients often ask us whether they should hire a lawyer for their car accident case. They feel as though they were hurt, but not too badly. They car was damaged, but not too badly. They have insurance, but they don’t want to use it because of fear their premiums will go up. They are scared to go into a courtroom and go to trial because of some type of stage fear and missing time at work. Lawyers seem expensive. How can someone decide whether to hire a lawyer with all of these factors hanging over their head in the thought process?
Obviously we are lawyers, so our answer is going to be that you should always hire a lawyer if you were in a car accident, no matter how minor. However, my answer will be geared more towards minor car accidents where an injury did occur.
Let’s start with the “expense” of hiring a lawyer. In fact, it costs you nothing to hire a lawyer in your car accident case. We do all of our car accident cases on a contingent basis. That means that our clients don’t ever pay us a dime. We only get paid a fee if and when we recover for our clients. If we do not recover for our clients, we never get paid. The money that we spend on prosecuting the case is only reimbursed to us if we recover for our clients.
Regarding injuries, if you are injured in a car accident case, you probably have no idea the extent of your injury. Sometimes, the most minor fender benders can cause catastrophic injuries that do not show signs of the injuries for days or weeks after the accident. By hiring a lawyer, the lawyer should make sure that you are properly checked-out for all of your injuries to ensure that your medical needs will be met.
Your car should be repaired and you should be made whole. If the accident wasn’t your fault, why should you incur the expense of repairing it? When car accidents happen, someone has to foot the bill for the repairs to your vehicle–why should it be you? By hiring a car accident lawyer, your bills will get paid on your case and your car will be repaired. If you go at it alone, you will foot the bill for the car accident, or at least the deductible, and you may have to take your car to your insurance company’s mechanic.
If you are not at fault in the car accident, your premiums may not go up. Period. I often hear people complain that they are scared to have a case regarding a car accident because they are worried their premiums will go up. Not only is this position a complete myth, its illegal and in bad faith for an insurance company to raise your rates if you are not at fault in a car accident.
Lastly, going to trial. At the Philadelphia car accident law firm of Levin & Zeiger LLP, we have lawyers that go to trial often. However, most minor car accident cases settle because the lawyers on the defense side understand that we will go to trial on our clients’ cases no matter how big or small. Accordingly, on a small car accident case, the chance of going to trial is less than 5%–not much of a risk. Even if your case does go to trial, our seasoned team of trial lawyers will prepare your for court and dissipate all of your fears.
In conclusion, hiring a lawyer in your car accident case is a must. Contact us now at 215.825.5183 for a free consultation to discuss your matter and get started with your recovery.
Tags: bills, car accident, injuries, insurance, lawyer, premiums, trial
Posted in car accidents | No Comments »
Monday, July 4th, 2011
Change in government policy cases are difficult to assess because if the government has a good reason to maintain their policy that is rationally related to a legitimate government purpose or if a statute specifically authorizes the policy, though the statute could be bad too. If any of the policy is bad, peoples’ civil rights are being violated and a lawsuit can be filed to change the bad government policy.
An example of a tough change in government policy is challenging Pennsylvania’s expungement statute. The statute is:
18 Pa.C.S.A. § 9122
- (a) Specific proceedings.–Criminal history record information shall be expunged in a specific criminal proceeding when:
(1) no disposition has been received or, upon request for criminal history record information, no disposition has been recorded in the repository within 18 months after the date of arrest and the court of proper jurisdiction certifies to the director of the repository that no disposition is available and no action is pending. Expungement shall not occur until the certification from the court is received and the director of the repository authorizes such expungement;
(2) a court order requires that such nonconviction data be expunged; or
(3) a person 21 years of age or older who has been convicted of a violation of section 6308 (relating to purchase, consumption, possession or transportation of liquor or malt or brewed beverages) petitions the court of common pleas in the county where the conviction occurred seeking expungement and the person has satisfied all terms and conditions of the sentence imposed for the violation, including any suspension of operating privileges imposed pursuant to section 6310.4 (relating to restriction of operating privileges). Upon review of the petition, the court shall order the expungement of all criminal history record information and all administrative records of the Department of Transportation relating to said conviction.
(b) Generally.–Criminal history record information may be expunged when:
(1) An individual who is the subject of the information reaches 70 years of age and has been free of arrest or prosecution for ten years following final release from confinement or supervision; or
(2) An individual who is the subject of the information has been dead for three years.
(b.1) Prohibition.–A court shall not have the authority to order expungement of the defendant’s arrest record where the defendant was placed on Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition for a violation of any offense set forth in any of the following where the victim is under 18 years of age:
Section 3121 (relating to rape).
Section 3122.1 (relating to statutory sexual assault).
Section 3123 (relating to involuntary deviate sexual intercourse).
Section 3124.1 (relating to sexual assault).
Section 3125 (relating to aggravated indecent assault).
Section 3126 (relating to indecent assault).
Section 5902(b) (relating to prostitution and related offenses).
Section 5903 (relating to obscene and other sexual materials and performances).
(c) Maintenance of certain information required or authorized.–Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the prosecuting attorney and the central repository shall, and the court may, maintain a list of the names and other criminal history record information of persons whose records are required by law or court rule to be expunged where the individual has successfully completed the conditions of any pretrial or post-trial diversion or probation program. Such information shall be used solely for the purpose of determining subsequent eligibility for such programs and for identifying persons in criminal investigations. Criminal history record information may be expunged as provided in subsection (b)(1) and (2). Such information shall be made available to any court or law enforcement agency upon request.
(d) Notice of expungement.–Notice of expungement shall promptly be submitted to the central repository which shall notify all criminal justice agencies which have received the criminal history record information to be expunged.
(e) Public records.–Public records listed in section 9104(a) (relating to scope) shall not be expunged.
(f) District attorney’s notice.–The court shall give ten days prior notice to the district attorney of the county where the original charge was filed of any applications for expungement under the provisions of subsection (a)(2).
Part C allows the prosecuting district attorney’s office, the central repository, and the court to maintain a record of the arrest even though the purpose of the expungement is to obliterate the record. The record can only be maintained for purposes of determining whether people are eligible for future diversion programs like future consideration for a second ARD (accelerated rehabilitative diversion) application. Also, to maintain the police arrest photo for future identification issues in future crimes.
Is Part C legal? What happens if the district attorney or the state police use the information for another purpose? Should citizens have some guarantee the information is only used as it states under Part C?
If you have a situation where the government is enforcing its power against you by an action not authorized by statute, you may have a civil rights action against the government to change policy.
Tags: change in government policy, civil right, civil rights, court, government, legal, police photo, policy
Posted in civil rights | No Comments »
|
|
|
|
|
