Thomas J Newell Esquire

Information may not be reliable

Since 1981, I have battled insurance companies to get the benefits and settlements my Pennsylvania personal injury clients deserve.

Let Me Handle Your PA Insurance/Legal Hassles!
When you have been hurt in a car crash, dog bite or slip & fall, you can quickly become overwhelmed dealing with insurance companies. As a Pennsylvania personal injury lawyer, my job is to handle all of the legal/insurance issues so you concentrate on getting better!

Free HOME Consultation!
I will personally review the facts of your PA accident or dog bite case with you. Please CONTACT ME to make the process of hiring your PA car accident and personal injury attorney as easy as possible. Usually, I can schedule your free home consultation within 48 hours of our phone conversation.

PA Personal Injury Cases ONLY!
As a PA personal injury lawyer, I only represent victims harmed by the negligence of others. Unlike general practice attorneys, I do NOT represent insurance companies or accept any other type of case. To review my 28 years of PA personal injury experience, please visit Why Attorney Newell? To see the specific types of personal injury cases I accept, please go to PERSONAL INJURY ACCIDENT.

A Poconos car accident victim was paid $435,000.00 to settle her personal injury claims after an automobile crash in the Pocono Mts. She was hit head-on and knocked unconscious. A MedEvac helicopter took her to an area hospital where she was admitted as a "trauma alert". Several surgeries were needed to... read more

A Montgomery County Pennsylvania dog bite victim received a $479,000.00 settlement after a dog attack near Lansdale, PA. A German Shepherd was running loose in a development and bit the young boy without any provocation. The Montgomery County resident sustained severe lacerations to his face....read more

A Perkasie, PA slip and fall victim settled his case for $212,500.00. A couple bought a home in Perkasie. The hill next to their house was very steep and the developer ignored their request that it be re-graded. As the Perkasie resident was cutting the hill, he slipped and his right foot went under the lawn mower.....read more

On Sept. 21. 2010, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania overruled the Trial Court and granted a PA personal injury victim a new trial limited to the issue of the award of damages. In January of 2003, a man purchased 2 tree stands to be used for hunting. In September of 2005, the Pennsylvania personal injury victim was installing a tree stand in Butler County. Unfortunately, a locking strap broke free and the hunter fell to the ground.

One of the victim's vertebrae was crushed and his personal injury attorney filed a lawsuit versus the distributors and manufacturers of the alleged defective product. A jury verdict was entered in favor of the defendants. They had successfully argued that the plaintiff had voluntarily assumed the risk of using the tree stand and had exhibited highly reckless conduct by "setting the stand" and failing to use the fall restraint device.

The PA Superior Court ruled that there was insufficient evidence presented to prove assumption of the risk/reckless conduct on the part of the plaintiff. Therefore, the issue of the defendants' legal responsibility never should have reached the jury. The PA personal injury victim was entitled to a new trial to have a jury make a damage award. Reott v. Asia Trend, Inc., et al., 2010 Pa. Super. 176 (2010)

A 2010 ruling of the Superior Court of Pennsylvania overruled a Trial Court decision and permitted a PA personal injury claim to proceed to trial. A lawsuit was filed in Allegheny County alleging that after 40 years as an automobile mechanic, a man contracted mesothelioma. His Pennsylvania personal injury attorney filed a complaint alleging that the mechanic's cancer was caused by the inhalation of asbestos from using/installing automotive friction products for over 4 decades.

Various motions were filed by the defendants to have the PA personal injury lawsuit thrown out. The trial judge ruled that the plaintiff's expert testimony was not sufficently based upon scientific and medical principles to establish a direct link between the automotive products and cancer. The PA personal injury lawyer filed an appeal. The PA Superior Court ruled that there was sufficient evidence to permit the expert to testify as to causation. Betz v. Pneumo Abex LLC, 998 A.2d 962 (Pa. Super. 2010)

On July 14, 2010, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania denied re-argument and let stand its May 14, 2010 decision that required separate verdicts for an injured PA car wreck victim. A woman was rear-ended by a negligent driver in Beaver County PA. Both drivers were insured by State Farm. The defendant had a $50,000.00 liability policy, while the car crash victim had $50,000.00 in PA underinsured motorist coverage.

Litigation filed versus the defendant driver was temporarily put on hold while the UIM claim was litigated versus State Farm. The arbitrators awarded the underinsured motorist claim victim a total of $100,000.00. After the woman collected her $50,000.00 in UIM coverage, her Pennsylvania underinsured motorist lawyer filed a Motion for Summary Judgment with the trial court. He argued that the legal doctrine of collateral estoppel prevented the defendant and State Farm from challenging a $50,000.00 judgment versus the tortfeasor.

The Trial Court agreed and ordered that State Farm pay its $50,000.00 liability policy limit. Since the defendant driver was not a party to the UIM litigation, her individual interests were not protected. Her lack of privity meant that the UIM arbitration result was not binding upon her. The car crash victim is now required to proceed to trial against the defendant. Catroppa v. Carlton, 998 A.2d 643 (Pa. Super. 2010)

A June 2010 legal ruling of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania affirmed the dismissal of personal injury claims versus 5 police officers. The cops were staking out a home they suspected was being used for drug dealing. A search warrant was obtained and the officers found 336 packets of crack cocaine, marijuana and other drugs, as well as drug paraphernalia. The adult son of the property owners, who was observed making the drug sales, and his parents were arrested.

At the preliminary hearing, the only evidence presented was against the son who was later convicted of all criminal charges. The charges against the parents were dismissed. Their PA personal injury attorney filed suit alleging false arrest, false imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress and other legal claims versus the police officers.

Those personal injury claims were dismissed via a Motion for Summary Judgment. The Court ruled that there was probable cause to arrest the parents. They owned the home, they had access to the freezer, barbecue grill and bedroom where the drugs were located. They were also present when their son conducted his drug sales at their front door. Manley v. Fitzgerald, 997 A.2d 1235 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010).

On July 21, 2010, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania denied re-argument and confirmed its May 28, 2010 decision that SEPTA must make interest payments to medical providers whose bills it did not pay within 30 days of receipt. A number of medical offices were treating PA bus accident victims and complained that SEPTA was not timely paying their medical bills.

The medical providers filed a lawsuit versus SEPTA claiming that it was required to pay their medical bills plus 12% interest for all bills not paid within 30 days of their receipt. The Trial Court agreed and granted their Motion for Summary Judgment. An Appeal was taken. The Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court ruled that since SEPTA is self-insured, it was subject to the same legal requirements as "insurers". Therefore, any PA bus accident victim's medical bills which are not timely paid are subject to the 12% interest penalty. In Re SEPTA MVFRL Interest Litigation, 996 A.2d 1099 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010)

An April 30, 2010 Opinion of the Superior Court of Pennsylvania upheld the dismissal of a PA personal injury claim due to the legal doctrine of assumption of risk. A group of teenage boys decided to build a homemade bomb which they planned to detonate in a remote location to avoid detection. The plaintiff held the bomb while another boy lit the fuse. The device exploded before the personal injury victim had time to throw it.

The explosion tore apart his right hand amputating portions of his right thumb, middle finger and ring finger. The boy's parents sued all of the other boys involved in building the explosive device. The Court of Common Pleas of Beaver County granted the defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment. The PA Superior Court agreed finding that the defendants did not owe him a duty to safeguard him from the harmful situation he helped create. He also assumed the risk of injury by handling a lit explosive. Montagazzi v. Crisci, 994 A.2d 626 (Pa. Super. 2010)

A March 2010 decision by a Lancaster County PA Trial Judge overruled the Preliminary Objections of the defendant restaurant/bar and permitted a personal injury suit to go to trial. In March of 2008 a woman drove the wrong way on Route 30 and crashed head-on into a vehicle killing 3 of its occupants. A police investigation identified the defendant driver as intoxicated and driving without a license due to a suspension because of a prior DUI charge.

A Pennsylvania personal injury lawyer filed a lawsuit versus the defendant driver, her parents and the bar that served her alcohol before the car wreck. The Complaint alleged that the bar served the defendant driver with alcohol in violation of the Dram Shop Act and on legal theories based upon common law negligence. A claim for punitive damages was also made.

The Preliminary Objections were filed to strike the punitive damage claim, as well as allegations of common law negligence. The Estate of the personal injury victims properly plead facts to support a punitive damage claim. The Lancaster County Common Pleas Judge ruled that the Dram Shop Act is not the exclusive remedy against a licensee due to the furnishing of alcoholic beverages to a visibly intoxicated person. Court of Common Pleas Lancaster County PA. No. C1-09-08267 (March 10, 2010 J. Ashworth)

An April 2010 ruling of the Superior Court of Pennsylvania reinstated the personal injury claims of 2 Philadelphia car accident victims. A lawsuit was filed by a PA car crash attorney against an individual who was believed to be the owner and driver of the car that caused the MVC. During the discovery process of the litigation, the lawyer obtained information which led him to believe that someone else may have been driving the defendant's car at the time of the crash.

A Motion to Amend the Complaint was filed requesting the Court's permission to join this other person as an additional defendant. The Motion was filed before the expiration of the 2 year Statute of Limitations. The Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas Judge denied the Motion and discontinued the lawsuit marking it 'disposed.' The personal injury lawyer filed an Appeal which was granted. The trial court had no authority to dismiss the Complaint on its own initiative. In addition, there was no proof of prejudice to the original defendant. Meadows v. Goodman, 993 A.2d 99 (Pa. Super. 2010)

A 2010 decision of the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania affirmed a jury's decision in favor of the Port Authority of Allegheny County. A negligence lawsuit had been filed by the Morewood Point Community Association to recover damages suffered when a landslide from a hill owned by the Port Authority damaged Association property. The lawyers representing the plaintiffs had put the defendant on notice of a potentially dangerous condition prior to the landslide.

While the defense of sovereign immunity did not bar the lawsuit, the attorneys representing the Association could not prove that the defendant's employees/agents performed any negligent act to cause the landslide. While ground water flowing from the Port Authority's real estate probably contributed to the hill's instability, its employees did not perform any actions which caused or worsened the unstable situation. Therefore, the jury verdict was sustained. Morewood Point Community v. Port Authority of Allegheny County, 993 A.2d 323 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010)

A 2010 legal opinion of the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania affirmed an Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas decision which granted a Motion for Summary Judgment filed by the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission (PTC). A man was driving eastbound on the Pennsylvania Turnpike when his automobile hydroplaned on the wet highway, spun off the road and struck a guardrail. A portion of the guardrail went into the car, hitting the car accident victim and resulting in a massive loss of blood which caused his death.

The Estate of the Pennsylvania personal injury victim filed a lawsuit versus the PA Turnpike Commission alleging a negligent design of the guardrail. The PTC asserted a defense of Sovereign Immunity. The Appeals Court agreed that the car accident victim's Estate had not proved that a dangerous condition of the road itself caused the driver to lose control of the car. The Commonwealth Court also re-affirmed prior decisions which noted that the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission has no legal duty to erect guardrails. Therefore, any guardrails which it voluntarily installs can't be challenged due to alleged design defects. Stein v. Pennsylvania Turnpike Com'n, 989 A.2d 80 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010)

On April 26, 2010, the Pennsylvania Superior Court ordered a car crash victim to sign authorizations permitting the defense to access her past mental health records. The injured woman filed a lawsuit seeking a damage award as the result of an automobile accident. Part of her claim was for mental health related problems caused by anxiety in dealing with the crash and her physical injuries.

During the discovery process, the defense requested access to her past records of both physical and mental health injuries. While the PA car accident attorney provided authorizations for the physical injury records, he claimed the mental health documents were protected by privilege. The Appeals Court ruled that by claiming an aggravation of a pre-existing mental health condition, the Pennsylvania car accident victim made relevant her past treatment history. Gormley v. Fagar, (Pa. Super. April 26, 2010)

A 2010 decision of the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania affirmed a lower court ruling to dismiss a PA personal injury claim. A man was working as an irrigation technician at a golf course owned by the City of Philadelphia. He was instructed to take a pick and shovel to remove crocus bulbs from a flower bed. His pick unexpectedly got stuck in some landfill containing chunks of concrete and asphalt under the topsoil. While trying to pull the pick out, he suffered a serious back injury.

His Pennsylvania personal injury lawyer filed a lawsuit vs. the City of Philadelphia (City). During discovery, testimony was given that proved that the flower bed was originally constructed years ago by an independent contractor hired by the City. Based upon the Trial Court's jury instructions, including local governmental immunity, the jury found Philadelphia not negligent and, therefore, not responsible for the Plaintiff's injuries.

The Appeals Court ruled that since the City presented evidence establishing that the flower bed was constructed by an independent contractor, the burden of proof shifted to the personal injury victim. Without proof that a City employee participated in the construction of or supervision over the building of the flower bed, Philadelphia was immune from legal responsibility. Nardo v. City of Philadelphia, 988 A.2d 740 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010)

A Monroe County PA personal injury claim versus an alleged negligent doctor was reinstated after a December 2009 Decision of the Superior Court of Pennsylvania overruled an Opinion of Judge Linda Miller. An administrator of the Estate of Christopher Aranda filed a Writ of Summons versus 19 medical providers. A Complaint was later filed containing averments against 15 of the original Defendants. The personal injury attorney agreed to dismiss the other 4 named Defendants.

Since the Complaint was a professional liability lawsuit, the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require a Certificate of Merit to be submitted against each Defendant within 60 days of the filing of the Complaint. The Plaintiff's personal injury attorney attached 14 Certificates of Merit to the Complaint itself. As a result of an undetected clerical error, the remaining Certificate of Merit was not included.

The defense attorney chose not to alert Plaintiff's counsel of the oversight. Instead, he waited until the 61st day after the Complaint's submission when he filed a Praecipe for Entry of Judgment of Non Pros. The Prothonotary's Office entered Judgment on his client's behalf that same day. Seven days later Plaintiff's counsel filed a Petition to Open/Strike Judgment. The Monroe County Trial Judge refused to permit the filing of the 15th Certificate of Merit and denied the Petition. As a result, the Monroe County personal injury claim against the alleged negligent doctor was dismissed due to a technicality which had nothing to do with the merits of the case.

Fortunately, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania recognized this miscarriage of justice. All 3 judges who heard the appeal agreed that the p. i. case against the alleged negligent physician should be reinstated and the Appeals Court reversed Judge Miller's decision. Estate of Aranda v. Amrick, 987 A.2d 727 (Pa.Super. 2009)

A December 2009 ruling of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reversed a decision of the PA Superior Court and ordered parents to reimburse the Pennsylvania Department of Welfare (DPW) for all Medicare expenses incurred on behalf of their disabled child. The girl was born with severe disabilities. Her parents filed a medical malpractice lawsuit versus Centre Community Hospital 2 months before she turned 18.

A personal injury settlement was agreed to during the litigation. From the day she was born until the date of the settlement, DPW had paid a total of $56,517.81. Due to the 2 year Statute of Limitations, the parents were only able to recover a small portion of that sum in the litigation. Nonetheless, the Centre County Trial Judge ordered the parents to pay DPW 100% of their lien.

The Pennsylvania Superior Court had reversed the Trial Court ruling and required payment of only the medical expenses recoverable from the negligent Defendant. The PA Supreme Court vacated this decision and reinstated the Trial Court ruling. While all future Medicaid beneficiaries can sue their tortfeasors to recover all medical payments made on their behalf, the Boumaster family was required to reimburse DPW tens of thousands of dollars they were unable to recover from the negligent hospital. E. D. B. Ex Rel. D. B. v Clair, 987 A.2d 681 (PA 2009)

A December 2009 legal opinion of the PA Superior Court affirmed the dismissal of a Pennsylvania personal injury claim. An employee of a security company was working at a client's job site when she was injured. She filed a lawsuit against the property owner. The Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas granted the Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the pleadings due to a Workmen's Compensation Release she had signed prior to her injury.

Her PA personal injury lawyer filed an appeal claiming that the employer's release was contrary to public policy. The Appeals Court noted that the employee signed a release which waived any claims she may have against a customer if those injuries are covered under the Worker's Compensation Statutes. Since she did receive W.C. benefits, the court upheld the enforcement of the release's terms. Bowman v. Sunoco, Inc., 986 A.2d 883 (Pa. Super. 2009)

A 2009 decision of the Superior Court of Pennsylvania denied an injured worker's claim of nearly $85,000.00 in delay damages after an Erie County PA jury verdict. The victim was working at a construction site when he was injured due to the negligence of employees of another company. His Pennsylvania personal injury attorney entered into a high/low settlement agreement with the Defendant's insurance company.

Any jury verdict below the minimum settlement number would be adjusted up to that number. A verdict rendered above the high number would be reduced to that figure. The Erie County Court of Common Pleas jury verdict was higher than the agreed upon maximum damage award. Once the judge molded the verdict, the victim's trial attorney filed a motion requesting the addition of delay damages.

The Erie County trial judge denied the motion. The high/low agreement was clear and unambiguous. The Appeals Court affirmed the lower court decision. Since the high/low settlement agreement did not discuss delay damages, the contract could not be amended by the court to add additional financial liability on the part of the Defendant's insurance carrier. Thompson v. T. J. Whipple Construction Co., 985 A.2d 221 (Pa. Super. 2009)

Jury to Decide Fault re: Construction Site Car Crash
A November 2009 ruling of Judge Kwidis of the Beaver County PA Court of Common Pleas denied the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by a construction company and permitted a Pennsylvania car crash victim to proceed to a jury trial. The driver came to an intersection in Aliquippa PA which was under construction.

The right lane was closed and traffic was diverted into the left lane. The driver didn't notice the altered traffic pattern and crashed into the concrete median in the center of the 4 lane road. His gas tank ruptured and he sustained 2nd and 3rd degree burns which required 3 surgeries with skin grafting.

A lawsuit was filed against PennDOT and the construction company working on the site. It alleged that the Defendants created a dangerous condition by not adequately warning drivers of the potential dangers within the construction site re: the right lane closure and the damaged median. The Beaver County Judge ruled that issues of fact should be decided by a jury regarding the need for appropriate warning signs. Mavrich v PennDOT and Golden Triangle Construction Co., Court of Common Pleas Beaver County PA, No. 10900 of 2003 (Nov. 30, 2009 J. Kwidis)

An August 2009 judicial ruling of the Superior Court of Pennsylvania permitted a golfer to pursue his Philadelphia County personal injury lawsuit. The golfer was playing in a charity golf outing when he agreed to drive his golf cart to the next hole to see if the playing group ahead had cleared the green. On his way back to the tee box, one of his partners hit a wayward tee shot hitting the victim in the face.

Once the personal injury lawsuit was filed, the defendant golfer's lawyer filed a motion for summary judgment. It was granted by the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas based upon the legal doctrine of assumption of the risk. The Appeals Court overturned the trial court decision.

The victim raised a factual issue that would potentially allow a jury to decide that the defendant golfer should have waited for the victim to return to the tee box area before he hit his tee shot. If he owed that duty and failed to do so, his negligence caused the accident. Zeidman v. Fisher, 980 A.2d 637 (Pa. Super. 2009)

A 2009 opinion of the PA Superior Court resulted in a new trial granted to the Estate of a Pennsylvania motor vehicle accident victim. A pick-up driver approached an intersection in Lackawanna PA where the stop sign had been knocked down. He applied his brakes and skidded thru the intersection hitting an embankment. When the emergency personnel arrived on the scene, they found the Pike County PA personal injury victim dead in the passenger seat.

A wrongful death claim was filed with the Pike County Court of Common Pleas against Ford Motor Co. - the manufacturer of the pick-up truck. A product liability claim was presented to the jury based upon the legal theory that the airbag system was defective. The Pike County trial judge permitted Ford to present evidence that the pick-up truck driver was not wearing his seat belt at the time of the crash. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the Defendant.

The personal injury attorney filed an appeal based upon Section 4581 of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Code. The PA Superior Court agreed that Pennsylvania Law prohibits the admissibility of the non-use of seat belts into evidence. A new trial was granted to the Estate of the accident victim. Gaudio v. Ford Motor Co., 976 A.2d 524 (PA Super. 2009)

A 2008 Decision of the Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirmed a Lackawanna County Trial Judge's decision to dismiss a boy's personal injury lawsuit. He had driven his motorbike on a company's property that was mostly undeveloped. The real estate had areas of brush and trees that were transected by dozens of trails used by local residents for recreational purposes.

The PA personal injury victim crashed into a gate suffering a cerebral concussion and multiple fractures requiring surgeries. His parents sued based on the legal theories of negligence and attractive nuisance. The Defendant pled statutory immunity under the Recreational Use of Land and Water Act (RULWA). The RULWA provides immunity for owners of undeveloped land who open that land without charge for recreational use by members of the public.

The Appeals Court noted that the gate was erected to discourage dumpers and/or vandals. There was no evidence to prove ongoing maintenance/improvements to the property. Therefore, the defense of the Recreational Use of Land and Water Act was appropriate. Stanton v. Lackawanna Energy LTD, 951 A.2d 1181 (PA Super. 2008)

A 2009 ruling of the PA Superior Court denied the ability of a Pennsylvania personal injury victim to obtain an additional recovery from an excess automobile insurance policy. A woman was rear-ended by a drunk driver who was driving a service loaner car from an auto dealership. The insurance company paid its policy limit.

The Pennsylvania car accident attorney filed suit versus the car dealership and its insurance company. He claimed that his client should be able to make a recovery against the dealership's excess insurance coverage. The Wyoming County PA trial judge ruled that the exclusion in the excess policy for drivers of loaner cars was clear and unambiguous. The Appeals Court affirmed this decision. Kropa v. Gateway Ford, 974 A.2d 502 (PA Super. 2009)

A 2009 Decision by the PA Superior Court affirmed a Chester County jury's verdict in favor of a Pennsylvania car accident victim. A woman was slowing down for traffic when she was rear-ended and then crashed into the car in front of her. She was treated for back injuries which she and her doctor felt were permanent.

The PA car crash victim received a favorable Arbitration Award. The Defendant's attorney filed an Appeal and the case was heard by a jury. Her Pennsylvania personal injury lawyer presented the testimony of a chiropractor who had examined her at the request of the Defendant's insurance company. This doctor's testimony supported the conclusions of the treating doctor and the victim received a large verdict.

An Appeal was taken to the Pennsylvania Superior Court claiming that it was an error for the Trial Court to permit the doctor hired by the insurance company to testify for the car accident victim. Since the victim's attorney did not discuss the case with the doctor before his voluntary testimony, there was no disclosure of expert-client communications and the Appeal was denied. Dolan v. Fissell, 973 A.2d 1009 (PA Super. 2009)

A 2009 ruling by the Court of Common Pleas of Mercer County PA denied the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment and permitted the personal injury claim of a limited tort victim to proceed to trial. The negligent Defendant rear-ended the Plaintiff's car. The Defendant's lawyers argued that the Pennsylvania car crash victim had not sustained a serious bodily injury and, therefore, could not overcome her selection of the limited tort option.

The PA car accident victim's attorney filed a medical expert report and medical records claiming that his client suffered from a protruding disc in her neck and a bulging disc in her lumbar spine. Her treating doctor offered an opinion that these injuries prevented her from participating in athletics, as well as bending, stooping, standing or sitting for prolonged periods of time. These significant impairments were alleged to be permanent. The Trial Judge ruled that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding the car accident victim's injuries which would be resolved in the trial by jury. Tritt v. Ruley, et al., 31 Mercer Co. L. J. 6 (2009)

Carbon County Driver Fails to Prove Damages
A 2009 decision by President Judge Rodger Nanovic of the Carbon County Court of Common Pleas affirmed a jury verdict in favor of the Defendant and against the Pennsylvania personal injury claimant. Two motor vehicles were traveling on Mahoning Street in Lehighton PA when the Defendant rear-ended the Plaintiff's van. Although the jury found that the Defendant was negligent, it ruled that the negligence did not result in any compensable injuries to the driver of the van.

The evidence showed that the Carbon County car accident victim denied any injury at the scene. He also waited until 3 weeks after the crash to receive his first medical care. At trial he admitted that he was involved in a second car accident soon after the 1st crash. He also later fell down 14 steps. Both of those incidents resulted in medical care being provided. His treating doctor admitted that the MRI's did not show any bulges or herniations from the Lehighton auto accident. The personal injury claimant failed to comply with the recommended medical treatment and only saw a doctor recommended by his attorney.

In the cross examination of the Plaintiff's expert, he admitted that his patient had seen a pain management specialist 16 days before the 1st crash for prior injuries which included left leg nerve damage and a lumbar spine operation requiring the installation of rods to support the low back. The Carbon County Trial Judge ruled that there was ample evidence to support the jury's decision that the Plaintiff had not met his burden of proof regarding his damage claim relating to the Lehighton car accident. Righter v. Walter, Court of Common Pleas Carbon County PA, No. 04-0699 (March 9, 2009)

A 2009 Opinion of the PA Commonwealth Court reversed a Philadelphia County Decision in favor of a personal injury victim. A woman was crossing the street in Center City Philadelphia when she tripped and fell on a raised portion of the road. Various companies had performed construction work at the area of the accident. Unfortunately, the road was not leveled off after the project was completed.

The Pennsylvania personal injury victim suffered serious injuries to her leg. Her attorney settled her claims versus the companies that performed the work and went to a non-jury trial versus the City of Philadelphia. The trial judge ruled in favor of the pedestrian. The Appeals Court overturned this Decision since the street was a state highway. There was no written contract between the city and Penn DOT requiring Philadelphia to repair and maintain the roadway. Leiphart v. City of Philadelphia, 972 A.2d 939 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009)

A 2009 Decision of the Pennsylvania Superior Court reversed a trial judge's ruling and ordered that a PA personal injury claim should proceed forward in the litigation. A Dauphin County PA no checking ice hockey league was the scene of a horrible accident. One of the players was checked into the boards. He sustained a badly fractured leg which required several surgeries and left him with permanent injuries and scarring.

His Pennsylvania personal injury attorney filed a lawsuit alleging that the Defendant's conduct went well beyond mere negligence and the risks assumed by the players on the ice. The Dauphin County Court of Common Pleas granted the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. The Appeals Court overruled the decision. The Pennsylvania personal injury victim was given the opportunity to present evidence to a jury that the Defendant breached a duty owed to his fellow player and that his actions were reckless. Archibald v. Kemble, 971 A.2d 513 (Pa. Super. 2009)

The Pennsylvania Dog Law was clarified in a June 2008 ruling by the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. A Carbon County PA dog bite victim was standing outside of his home when he was attacked by his neighbors' pit bulls. His Pennsylvania dog bite attorney filed suit against the dog owners and the community association that operated the private community.

The Carbon County trial judge ruled against the Jim Thorpe PA dog bite victim and dismissed the lawsuit versus the association. The lawyers representing the association successfully argued that their client could not remove nor confine the dogs and had no legal authority to take possession of the dog owners' home.

The Pennsylvania dog bite lawyer appealed the decision. The PA Commonwealth Court ruled that the community association did not have the power to enforce the PA Dog Law and affirmed the Carbon County Trial Court decision. The personal injury victim's sole source of compensation was against the homeowner's insurance policy of the dog owners. McMahan v. Pleasant Valley West Ass'n, 952 A.2d 731 (PA Cmwlth. 2008)

A Pennsylvania personal injury victim was able to proceed with her lawsuit versus a Monroe County PA ski resort as a result of a September 2008 legal decision of the PA Superior Court. A mother and her children went to the Poconos to go snow tubing at Camelback. They were using the family tubing slopes and at the end of their run, the woman stood up and was struck by another snow tube. The Pennsylvania personal injury victim suffered numerous comminuted fractures of her leg which required surgery.

The Pennsylvania personal injury attorney filed a lawsuit against Camelback Ski Corporation alleging that their employees had acted recklessly. The defense lawyer filed a Motion for Summary Judgment with the Court of Common Pleas of Monroe County demanding a dismissal of the legal action vs. Camelback. The defense claimed that a signed release and language on the back side of the lift ticket should result in the dismissal of the personal injury lawsuit.

The Pennsylvania Superior Court reversed the decision by Judge Arthur Zulick in favor of Camelback. The Appeals Court stated that the release form did not prevent a lawsuit versus the Monroe County business since reckless conduct by an employee was not specifically discussed in the release. The PA Superior Court pointed out that the lift ticket language was so small that it was nearly illegible and the PA personal injury victim stated that she did not read it prior to her accident. Tayar v. Camelback Ski Corp., 957 A.2d 281 (Pa. Super. 2008)

A 2009 Opinion of the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania upheld a trial judge's decision to dismiss a Pennsylvania car accident claim. A teenager was driving a car which left the highway and crashed into a tree. She died as a result of the crash. A Pennsylvania car crash lawyer filed a wrongful death claim against Penn DOT and another occupant of the automobile.

The defense attorney filed a Motion for Summary Judgment which was granted by the Somerset County Court of Common Pleas. Since the victim's Estate could not prove that a dangerous condition of the highway itself caused the car to leave the roadway, sovereign immunity prevented a claim against Penn DOT from succeeding.

The Pennsylvania personal injury attorney filed an appeal arguing that PennDOT's failure to have guardrails or reflective markings on the shoulder of the road contributed to the cause of the crash. The Commonwealth Court ruled that the Estate of the Pennsylvania car crash victim did not present facts sufficient to meet the real estate exception to sovereign immunity. Pritts v. Comm. Dept. of Transp., 969 A.2d 1 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2009)

The trial evidence proved that she was feeding & caring for the dogs and permitted them to remain on her property. The Appeals Court upheld her conviction of violating the PA Dog Law because of her control over the dogs.

A December 2008 Opinion of the Superior Court of Pennsylvania clarified the circumstances when an employee can make a PA personal injury claim against a fellow employee after a car accident. Two employees of a Montgomery County PA business used a company pick-up truck to drive to Baltimore to make repairs at a work site. After leaving the job, they stopped for dinner and both employees drank beer.

On the return trip to Pennsylvania, the driver lost control of the pick-up truck. The crash caused the passenger to sustain serious head injuries. The Pennsylvania car accident lawyer filed a lawsuit versus the driver in Philadelphia. The trial judge held that the driver's actions in driving back to PA were work related for his employer's benefit. Therefore, the co-employee was barred by the Pennsylvania Workers' Compensation Act from making a PA personal injury claim.

The Pennsylvania car crash lawyer filed an appeal. The Superior Court confirmed that Worker's Compensation benefits are the only remedy available to employees injured in a car accident due to the negligence of a co-employee while in the course and scope of their employment. The Court did not grant an exception to the Pennsylvania car crash victim since the driver was not convicted of DUI and no proof was provided that the alleged intoxication caused the collision. EMC v. Boiler Erection