Practice Areas
Blog 
Personal Injury
- New York state man recovers $200K for fingers lost to lawn mower
- Eight Powerful Reasons to Hire a Local Attorney
- Court Allows Claims For Emotional Distress After Alleged Breach Of Contract To Continue
- Wal-Mart Limits Subrogation Rights Against Workers
- Pennsylvania Worker recovers for fall from ladder bought at Home Depot
Premises Liability: The Slip and Fall
- NYC to pay $2.75M for softball accident in school gym class
- New case law on slilp and fall on icey sidewalks owned by a City
- Worker who lost leg in construction accident receives $13M
- Boy blinded in ATV rollover gets $6M settlement
- ELMIRA ATTORNEY CONTINUES TO INVESTIGATE OUTBREAK OF LEGIONNAIRES’ DISEASE AT THE FLANNERY TOWERS
Workers' Compensation
- New York Times article on biased "Independant" Medical Examiners
- No Work Jobs
- Prison Guard receives settlement in MRSA case
- New blog post at the Pa Injury Law blog about the effect Bush had on OSHA
- New post on the Pa Work Injury Law Blog about what to do when you're laid off
Vehicle and Automobile Accidents
- Pennsylvania Car Accident Plaintiff's award of $400,000 Upheld On Appeal
- An unsafe intersection in Athens Township?
- Pennsylvania Superior Court Case Quashing Underinsured Motorist Carrier Appeal
- Pa. Superior Court Allows UIM And Bad Faith To Proceed At Same Time
- People injured in Springfield Township, Bradford County automobile crash
General
- Insurance company denials of benefits in Pennsylvania and New York
- CALL YOUR MEMBER OF CONGRESS AND URGE SUPPORT FOR THE ARBITRATION FAIRNESS ACT OF 2009
- Another ATV Death
- Bradford County, Pennsylvania has a new website
- No conflict of interest between Bradford County, Pennsylvania's new Judge and new District Attorney, despite them cousins
Legal News
Judge campaign candidates speak at dinner in Towanda
Judge Beirne unopposed in local race
Attorney General Tom Corbett to visit Bradford County
Beirne will run for full term as judge
Bradford County Employers Laying Off Workers
Death Benefits Not Mandatory for PA Car Insurance
Bradford County: Judge Beirne presiding
Pennsylvania Senate confirms Beirne as Bradford County judge
Legal Library
Personal Injury
- Questions for Your Doctor In Personal Injury Cases
- Traumatic Brain Injury: By The [Staggering] Numbers
- What is an Independent Medical Examination?
- Common Questions About the Legal Process
- The Wrongful Death Of A Child - Part Two
Premises Liability: The Slip and Fall
- Cracked, Broken or Irregular Sidewalks Causing a Fall
- Dog Bites
- If You Have Been Bitten or Attacked by a Dog, Then You Need to Read This Article
- New Pennsylvania Superior Court Case on Dog Attack
- Lead Poisoning Threatens Pregnant Women
Workers' Compensation
- New York Times article on Independent Medical Exams
- Response to Time Magazine Article: "Doctor's View: Can Health Coverage Cause Pain?"
- Specific Loss Benefits
- Reimbursement for Travel Expenes in Pennsylvania Workers' Compensation Cases
- Flow of Pennsylvania Workers' Compensation Claim Documents Prior To Litigation
Vehicle and Automobile Accidents
- Reducing The Impact of A Whiplash Injury
- Car Accident Injuries: Neck Pain
- Multi-Truck Accident in Susquehanna County Results in Hospitalization
- Repeat Offender Facing DUI Charges After Accident Lands Passenger in Hospital
- Driver Strikes Mother and Daughter in School Crossing Zone
Newsletters
General
Personal Injury
Top Ten Jury Verdicts of 2007 are 25% lower than 2006
The total Top Ten awards for 2007 dropped 25 percent from 2006. This is 72 percent lower than in 2005. Last year's Top Ten includes several significant verdicts.2007's #2 verdict was the largest negligent security award in the nation's history - $102.7 million to a man shot and paralyzed in the parking lot of a Miami strip club. The trial included an interesting battle over damages, with the defense arguing medical costs should be calculated based on care in Tunisia, where the plaintiff was from, while the plaintiff's attorneys argued he could not get adequate care in his native country.
The #3 verdict may well have longstanding implications, since it was the first large punitive damages award following the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Philip Morris USA v. Williams, 127 S.Ct. 1057, to place new limits on punitives. The Los Angeles jury ordered DaimlerChrysler to pay $5.2 million in compensatory damages and $50 million in punitives to a man run over by his own truck when a faulty transmission caused it to slip from park to reverse.
Last year's Top Ten also included two pharmaceutical cases. For the third year in a row, Merck was held liable for its widely-used painkiller Vioxx. In a significant breakthrough for plaintiffs' lawyers, a New Jersey jury awarded $47.5 million to a man who had suffered a heart attack after using the medication for just two months. The plaintiff's first trial had ended in a defense verdict, but he was granted a retrial based on new evidence reported in the New England Journal of Medicine showing that short-term Vioxx use could increase cardiac risk.
In another pharmaceutical case, a Nevada jury awarded $134 million, including $99 million in punitive damages, to three women who developed cancer after using hormone replacement medication produced by Wyeth Pharmaceuticals. The 5,000 pending cases are based largely on a 2002 study concluding that women who use Prempro for five years have a 26 percent greater risk of developing breast cancer, a 29 percent greater risk of suffering a heart attack, a 41 percent greater chance of having a stroke and a 113 percent greater chance of having blood clots.
In the #1 verdict of 2007, a New York jury awarded $109 million in a medical malpractice case where the plaintiff's lawyer asked for just $18 million. The 34-year-old plaintiff suffered massive memory loss from a seizure caused by a botched diagnosis. The verdict, which was comprised entirely of compensatory damages, included $67 million for the wife's past and present loss of services.
That verdict marked New York's return to the Top Ten list after a two-year hiatus, and propelled the state into a first place tie with Texas for the most Top Ten verdicts (22) since 1995. California trails in a close third with 20.
Meanwhile, Florida is coming on strong with four Top Ten verdicts last year - the only state with more than one - putting it in fourth place, with 17 Top Ten verdicts since 1995.
* Punitive damages have also experienced a dramatic decline. The total punitive damages among the Top Ten verdicts in 2007 dropped 36 percent from 2006 - and this occurred after the total punitive awards had dropped 83 percent from 2005 to 2006.
* Punitive damages made up only 33 percent of total Top Ten awards in 2007, compared to 66 percent over the last 11 years
#1 $109 million verdict for brain-injured man
A New York jury awarded a brain-injured man and his wife $109 million after his lawyer asked for just $18 million. Even though he believed the medical arguments were making an impact on the jury, Wilkens said the most critical testimony was from Karen Dockery, the injured man's wife.
#2 $102.7M in Florida negligent security case
A Tunisian cruise ship waiter who is paralyzed from the waist down was awarded $102.7 million by a Florida jury this fall in the largest negligent security verdict ever.
#3 $50M punitive award sidesteps High Court ruling
In the first major punitive damages case since the U.S. Supreme Court placed new limits on punitive damages in February 2006, a Los Angeles jury ordered DaimlerChrysler to pay $5.2 million in compensatory damages and $50 million in punitives to a man run over by his own truck.
#4 Private plane crash yields $54M verdict
In a trial where the defense seemed to fold its case after two unsuccessful witnesses, a flight instructor and his student won a $54.5 million verdict for injuries they suffered in a private airplane crash.
#5 Nursing home to pay $54 million for resident who bled to death
In the largest personal injury verdict in state history, a New Mexico jury awarded $54 million to the family of a woman who bled to death in her nursing home.
#6 Family of brain-injured boy wins $50M
A Florida jury awarded $50 million to the family of a boy who was severely brain-injured when a pickup truck driven by a drunk driver crashed into his family's car.
#7 Exploding water heater brings $50M
An Alabama jury awarded $50 million to the family of a man who was killed by an exploding water heater, which the plaintiffs' lawyer likened to a "time bomb."
#8 $47.5 million Vioxx verdict helps prompt global settlement
Nine months before Merck reached a global settlement with thousands of Vioxx plaintiffs, a New Jersey jury awarded one man $47.5 million for a heart attack caused by taking the painkiller drug for just two months.
#9 Nevada woman wins $47.6 million in hormone therapy case
Three Nevada women won the biggest verdict to date in the ongoing hormone replacement therapy litigation against Wyeth, convincing a jury that the company knew its drugs caused breast cancer but failed to warn patients about the risks.
#10 $45 million for crash that killed unborn child and 9-year-old girl
In a case where the defendant's insurance company rejected a settlement offer for $200,000, a Florida jury awarded $45 million for the auto accident death of a woman's 9-year-old daughter and unborn child.
Thanks to Linda Sherman at L.S. Sherman Complex Litigation Specialists.
Can Seller of Defective Used Equipment be Strictly Liable in New York?
Mario Miquel Jaramillo was injured at work when his right hand was caught between two rollers on a 1964 Flexo Folder Gluer (“FFG”) which his employer, Glenwood Universal Packaging, purchased as used equipment from Weyerhaeuser Company in 1986. The evidence demonstrated that Weyerhaeusar sold an average of 3 used FFG’s per year, owned patents related to technology used in FFG’s, and had a working relationship with FFG manufacturers.
Jaramillo filed a complaint in New York state court against Weyerhaeuser alleging strict product liability. The case was removed to federal district court (S.D.N.Y.) and Weyerhaeusar was granted summary judgment as a casual seller of FFG’s under New York law and, therefore, could not be held strictly liable.
Casual sellers and regular sellers are distinguished in New York case law in strict product liability actions. The casual seller is only liable if it fails to warn the consumer of known defects that are not obvious or easily recognizable. The appellate court also noted that whether strict liability applies to sales of used goods, as in the present matter, is an open question under New York law.
After an examination of similar case law, the Second Circuit determined that it was necessary to have a resolution of the question of whether a seller of used industrial equipment can be deemed a “regular” seller in order to consider the propriety of summary judgment. To answer that question, it was certified to the New York Court of Appeals. The Second Circuit retained jurisdiction pending the outcome of the certification.
To see the full article from JudicialView.com, click here.Premises Liability: The Slip and Fall
Worker who lost leg in construction accident receives $13M
A construction worker whose leg had to be amputated after it was crushed by falling beams recovered a $13 million settlement.In 2005, Timothy McGuire was standing near an 80-foot I-beam on the Harrah's casino construction site in Chester when an aerial boom operator hit the beam, causing a chain reaction of falling beams. They landed on McGuire's right leg, crushing it. After 16 surgeries, his leg ultimately had to be amputated above-the-knee.
McGuire and his wife blamed general contractor T.N. Ward and subcontractors Samuel Grossi & Sons and E&R Erectors, arguing that they failed to ensure workers' safety. The plaintiffs also alleged the beams were improperly stored. Lawsuits against Harrah's Entertainment and Chester Downs were dismissed after the other parties agreed to the settlement. The case was filed in Philadelphia County.
To see the full report on this case, go to VerdictSearch.com.
At C&C Law, we have handled many construction site accidents in both Pennsylvania and New York. See more information on the website relating to construction site accidents here and here.
Drunken man paralyzed after fall down stairs gets $17M
A New York jury awarded nearly $17 million to a man who sustained a paralyzing spinal injury after he tripped through the entrance of his Bronx residence. The plaintiff, Juan Santa Barbara, tripped on a door saddle, fell through his doorway, over a small wall and down a stairway, fracturing his spine. Santa Barbara sued his landlord, claiming that the saddle was unreasonably tall and constituted a tripping hazard. The landlord argued that the area was safe, and it also noted that Santa Barbara was intoxicated at the time of the incident.
The jury assigned 70-percent liability to the landlord and 30-percent liability to Santa Barbara. It awarded $24,162,000, but that award was reduced by 30 percent, to reflect Santa Barbara's share of the fault.
Santa Barbara v. Migdol Realty Management, LLC
Vehicle and Automobile Accidents
District Court Holds that "Listed driver" Is Entitled to UIM Coverage
On September 10, 2008, in Horace Mann Insurance Company v. Alben, the District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (Schwab, J.) held that the "reasonable expectations of the insured" estops an insurance company from denying underinsured motorist (UIM) benefits to a person who is a "listed driver" on another person's (girlfriends) policy.
Robert Alben (Alben) was injured in an accident which occurred in Ohio. He was driving his employer's vehicle and then sought UIM coverage on his girlfriend's personal policy with Horace Mann because he was a "listed driver".
The Court initially holds that under the terms of the policy the "listed driver" is not automatically considered an "insured" or "covered person" to allow UIM coverage. However, then the court addresses the reasonable expectations of the insured and the recent statement of the Third Circuit standard in West v. Lincoln Ben. Life. Ins., 509 F.3d 160 (3d. cir. 2007) which offered a "synthesized standard [as] the truest statement of of Pennsylvania law" regarding the doctrine of reasonable expectations.
Applying the standard the Court notes that the insurer must demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the insured did not have a reasonable expectation of coverage. Based upon this standard and the facts of the case, particularly the fact that everyone involved testified that they all thought that by adding Alben to the policy as a listed driver he would be fully covered, the Court finds that the "listed driver" who was injured in his employers vehicle at the time of the accident is entitled to UIM coverage on his girlfriend's personal policy.
Thanks to Scott Cooper, Esquire for this information.
Robert Alben (Alben) was injured in an accident which occurred in Ohio. He was driving his employer's vehicle and then sought UIM coverage on his girlfriend's personal policy with Horace Mann because he was a "listed driver".
The Court initially holds that under the terms of the policy the "listed driver" is not automatically considered an "insured" or "covered person" to allow UIM coverage. However, then the court addresses the reasonable expectations of the insured and the recent statement of the Third Circuit standard in West v. Lincoln Ben. Life. Ins., 509 F.3d 160 (3d. cir. 2007) which offered a "synthesized standard [as] the truest statement of of Pennsylvania law" regarding the doctrine of reasonable expectations.
Applying the standard the Court notes that the insurer must demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the insured did not have a reasonable expectation of coverage. Based upon this standard and the facts of the case, particularly the fact that everyone involved testified that they all thought that by adding Alben to the policy as a listed driver he would be fully covered, the Court finds that the "listed driver" who was injured in his employers vehicle at the time of the accident is entitled to UIM coverage on his girlfriend's personal policy.
Thanks to Scott Cooper, Esquire for this information.
General
Study finds settling is better than going to trial
The following link is to a New York Times article regarding a comprehensive study of civil lawsuits that has found that most of the plaintiffs who decided to pass up a settlement offer and went to trial ended up getting less money than if they had taken that offer. The study was co-authored by Randall Kiser, who is an analyst at DecisionSet which is a consulting firm that advises clients on litigation decisions. When measuring how much money was recovered, 61% of the plaintiffs were wrong in deciding to not take a settlement and go to trial. However, defendants made the wrong decision by proceeding to trial only 24% of the time.
Approximately 80-92% of cases settle before they go to trial, however. The study was based upon a review of 2,054 cases that went to trial from 2002 to 2005.
Significantly, however, for plaintiffs who made the wrong decision and went to trial, it cost them about $43,000.00 on average. But, the defendants who made the wrong decision about going to trial were hit in a much greater amount, on average of 1.1 million dollars. Therefore, the errors that the defendants make are much more costly, despite the fact that the errors are made less often.
Also, the study indicated that factors such as rank of a lawyer’s law school and the size of a law firm were not dispositive in determining whether or not the lawyer and/or client made a mistake in going to trial. Therefore, as per the study, it does not really matter if you come from a big city firm or a small local firm, the same mistakes can be made.
Because we are experienced trial lawyers here at C&C Law, I immediately spotted a few defects with the study. First, the study stated that 15% of the cases the plaintiff received more than what was offered by the defendant, but less than what was demanded by the plaintiff before trial. This points out a fallacy in the ‘study’. A demand is a number to be worked from to reach an agreement. The fact that a plaintiff received less than their demand means NOTHING, if that demand did not represent what a client would accept as settlement, i.e., I demand $100,000.00 on a case I wish to settle for $50,000.00. After the trial, a jury awards met $57,000.00. I may have received $43K less than my ‘demand’, but I still resolved the case for what I thought was ‘full value’.
Also, a study like this, which gets printed in the NY Times is dangerous as it misinforms clients and potential clients and suggests that the problem is that the attorney is operating under a contingency fee agreement. (This has been a new ground for attack by tort (d)eformers; if they can’t prevent lawsuits and/or cap damages, then they will try to get limitations on contingency fee agreements, so people without money, who can’t pay hourly for an attorney, won’t be able to find an attorney because contingency fees have been curtailed or limited such that the claim is not worth the attorney risking his time and costs to prosecute.)
To see the entire article, go here.
Quick Contact
FAQs
Personal Injury
- How long is all this going to take?
- The insurance company offered me a settlement almost immediately after my serious accident. Should I accept it?
- The insurance company says that I don’t need a lawyer to settle this. What do you think?
- What is my case worth?
- What factors determine who is at fault in a car accident?
Workers' Compensation
- What happens if I return to a modified duty job and then I am laid off?
- If I am unable to return to the type of work I did before I was injured, what happens?
- If I am injured on the job can I choose the doctor who treats me?
- Should an injured worker apply for unemployment benefits?
- What medical benefits does the Act provide to a worker after they have sustained an on-the-job injury?
General
©2009 Carroll & Carroll, P.C., All Rights Reserved, Reproduced with Permission
The Best in Website Design for Attorneys, Attorney Web Blogs That Work, Attorney Search Engine Optimization, Optimized Video Services for Lawyers and Update Your Website Yourself
by Foster Web Marketing - The Best Attorney Website Design & Hosting Firm
Get SEO Tips from The Attorney Internet Marketing Blog
The Best in Website Design for Attorneys, Attorney Web Blogs That Work, Attorney Search Engine Optimization, Optimized Video Services for Lawyers and Update Your Website Yourself
by Foster Web Marketing - The Best Attorney Website Design & Hosting Firm
Get SEO Tips from The Attorney Internet Marketing Blog