Sayre Borough: Mayor urges caution for motorists, pedestrians

Words of wisdom from Sayre, Pennsylvania Mayor Denny Thomas.

A serious car-versus-pedestrian accident that occurred on South Wilbur Avenue near the Guthrie campus last Thursday has resulted in Borough Mayor Denny Thomas urging motorists and pedestrians to use more caution when traveling down or crossing the street.

The individual who was struck last week, Kathleen Burnett of Waverly, is currently listed in critical condition in the intensive care unit at Robert Packer Hospital.  Borough Police Chief Kevin Guinane labeled the incident as an “accident” during Monday’s meeting of the municipality’s police committee. No additional information regarding last week’s accident has been released by the Sayre Borough Police Department.

There are approximately 10,000 vehicles that travel through the Borough of Sayre every day, said Thomas.  While Wilbur Avenue near the Guthrie campus has been a safety issue in the past, Guthrie officials have installed flashing yellow lights in an effort to help make that stretch of roadway safer, said Thomas.

In addition, the borough purchased “pedestrian crossing” signs that are placed in the crosswalks in the area in an effort to increase safety in that area, he noted.
Both motorists and pedestrians still need to exercise caution when traveling down or crossing any street, said Thomas.

“I’ve seen people drive their cars (while) on their cell phones,” he said. “Then you also see people coming across the ... crosswalks with headsets on, listening to music or whatever. People have to be more vigilant all the way around.”

The road in front of the old Robert Packer Hospital is dangerous.  There is so much traffic coming from/to the Guthrie campus, as well as pedestrians coming/going from the hospital to their parked cars and to downtown Sayre, that it creates a situation where walkers are likely to get hit.  Even though the article stated that no one was at fault, all it takes is a driver being inattentive for a split second to cause an accident like this.

To see the full article from The Morning Times, click here.

Driver awarded for neck injuries in low speed rear-end accident

Superior Court upholds case of girl's fire hose death

A Pennsylvania appeals court upheld a $4.5 million jury verdict Tuesday against a truck manufacturer over an accident near Pittsburgh four years ago in which a six-pound fire hose nozzle became a fatal projectile.

The lawsuit was filed by two families over an August 2004 incident in Coraopolis in which a hose dangling from a moving fire truck became stuck under a parked car, then whipped around and struck two 10-year-old girls standing on a nearby lawn.

Erin Schmidt died of head injuries and her close friend and classmate, Joeylynne Jeffress, suffered extensive injuries but survived.

Erin Schmidt died of head injuries and her close friend and classmate, Joeylynne Jeffress, suffered extensive injuries but survived.

The plaintiffs also include three witnesses to the accident: Erin's mother, Joyce A. Schmidt; Erin's 13-year-old sister, Lindsay; and Joeylynne's 14-year-old sister, Lauren.

A divided three-judge Superior Court panel said state law allows bystanders who witness injury to a close relative to collect damages for emotional distress under certain circumstances.

"The courts have generally concluded that the definition of 'physical harm' encompasses injury that solely manifests itself in the form of emotional shock and disturbance," wrote Judge Cheryl Lynn Allen for the majority.

The court also ruled that Sinor Manufacturing Inc. of Clinton, Okla., which purchased at least parts of the company that manufactured the fire truck, inherited liability for the accident. Sinor is now known as Freightliner Specialty Vehicles Inc.

Court Holds No Underinsured Motorist Coverage Under Antique/Classic Car Policy Unless Actually Occupying It

PennDOT construction workers authorized to write police arrest reports

This should be interesting....

To combat these unsafe drivers, Pennsylvania Department of Transportation highway crews are writing more and more police arrest reports targeting dangerous driving through construction zones.

The road crews only have the ability to make the initial report. The reports are then sent to the proper policing agency for further investigation. If the police find the driver was in violation of the law, then a citation is issued.

“Someone who drives in and puts another’s life in jeopardy, we follow that up,” Mike Cotter, press safety officer for District 4-0, said Wednesday as a PennDOT crew prepared for pothole work on Middle Road.

“Workers are so vulnerable, because they are so close to vehicles. Any kind of erratic driving puts them at risk,” Cotter added.

Since 1970, 10 workers in District 4-0 have been killed at construction sites as a result of drivers. The district encompasses Luzerne, Lackawanna, Wyoming, Wayne, Susquehanna and Pike counties.

Court Holds Police Officer Injured Outside His Cruiser Is A Protected Person

On July 28, 2008, Judge Joyner in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Granted the Insured's Motion for Summary Judgment in St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co. v. Rhein.  Judge Joyner holds that Rhein was occupying his police vehicle at the time he was injured while conducting a routine traffic stop. 

In Rhein, the officer was injured in the course and scope of his employment.  He pulled over a speeding vehicle, stopped behind the car with his emergency lights on and exited his cruiser to conduct the stop.  At some point during the exchange of information the other driver's car began to roll backward and Rhein's hand became wedged inside the car door causing his injuries.  He settled the third party case with the other drivers insurance company and then sought underinsured motorist coverage form the Township insurer which denied coverage arguing that Rhein was not a "protected person" under the policy because he was not "occupying" the cruiser at the time of the accident.  

Applying the four (4) part "occupancy" test from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision in Utica Mutual Insurance Co. v. Contrisciane, 473 A.3d 1005 (Pa. 1984) the Court holds that Rhein was "occupying" the cruiser at the time of the accident.  One of the main issue to the four part test was whether Rhein was "vehicle oriented".  The court relies upon Property and Casualty Insurance Co. of Hartford v. Caperilla, 2004 WL 1551739 (E.D. Pa. July 9, 2004) where another officer was injure din a similar manner.    Thus, he is a covered and protected person and entitled to the underinsured motorist coverage.

Thanks to Attorney Scott Cooper for this information.

Allstate Finally Gives Up McKinsey Documents in Florida

From InsuranceJournal.com:

A Jackson County judge agreed on Wednesday, July 23 to throw out a contempt order against Allstate Insurance after determining the company had finally complied with his directions to release confidential documents.

The Kansas City Star reported on its Web site that the decision negates more than $7 million in fines that Allstate had accrued after Judge Michael Manners last year began levying penalties of $25,000 a day against the company in a bad-faith case.

The two sides agreed to settle the case on confidential terms last week, avoiding a Monday trial date. During a hearing Wednesday, Manners agreed that the company was no longer out of compliance with his order to release the confidential records and lifted the contempt order.

Attorneys for both Aldridge and the accident victim, Dale Deer, of Warrensburg, requested a set of records prepared by consultant McKinsey & Co. on behalf of the insurance company that showed how it set up a claims payment system in the 1990s aimed at generating big earnings while keeping claims payments low.

Unhealthy neglect of CDL standards in Pennsylvania

This is an editorial in the Towanda Daily Review on an item that we already wrote about in our library section.  You can see our article here on unfit and unhealthy truck and bus drivers.

From the Editorial....

In 2006, according to the U.S. Department of Transportation, 5,300 people died and another 126,000 were injured in accidents involving large commercial vehicles. In 12 percent of those crashes, the professional driver was found to have a physical impairment that contributed to the accident, from heart disease to sleep apnea.

When does ATV riding become illegal?

I often blog about AVT (All Terrain Vehicle) accidents and law suits; therefore, I thought this editorial from The Daily Review is very good.

See it here.

Insured Not Allowed UM/UIM Benefits for Accidents Caused By Co-employee

New Pennsylvania Federal Court Section 1734 Sign Down Case Nullifies Alleged Sign down Of UIM Coverage

On July 10, 2008, the District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania (Judge Vanaskie) granted the insureds motion for summary judgment and set aside an alleged sign down of underinsured motorist coverage in The Brethren Mutual Ins. Co. v. Triboski-Gray.  The insurance company argued that a sign down from $250,000 in bodily injury (BI) coverage to $35,000 in underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage was valid because the insured signed the bottom of a 2 page application for coverage.  Relying upon the Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision in Lewis v. Erie, 793 A.2d 143 (Pa. 2002) and Pennsylvania Superior Court decision in Motorists v. Emig, 664 A.2d 559 (Pa. Super. 1995), the Court holds that the insureds "signature on an application completed by the insurance company's agent does not constitute a written request for UM/UIM coverage limits below the coverage requested for bodily injury."    

In this case, there was none of the insureds initials next to the UM/UIM coverage designations on the application as in some other cases.  Thus, there was no "written request" according to the court.  The Court enforced the insurance policy and nullifies the lower UM/UIM coverage limits, thus deeming the UM/UIM coverage equal to the bodily injury limits.  The coverage for UM/UIM is now $250,000.

New case law on signing releases in complex cases

On July 7, in Ford Motor Company v. Buseman, the Superior Court reversed a trial court order denying a Motion for Summary Judgment in a products liability case resulting from a tragic car accident in which a Ford Explorer rolled over.

A federal lawsuit was filed against the driver and settled with two insurance companies for general releases. A separate state action was filed against Ford Motor for defective design. After the federal lawsuit was settled, Ford filed a Motion for Summary Judgment arguing that the execution of broad releases in the federal lawsuit that released "all other firms, person," etc. released the parties to the state suit.

The Superior Court holds that (at most) this is a unilateral mistake and the releases (without any limitations or indications that the state lawsuit parties were not released) were broad enough to effectively release the product defendants. The trial court was reversed.

See the Court's full opinion here.

The importance of wearing your helmet while riding an ATV

I know I've blogged about this before, but riders of motorcycles and ATV's (All Terrain Vehicles) should always, always, always wear a helmet.  I know in Pennsylvania the law says that it's not necessary, but some riders who are involved in accidents pay the ultimate price.

From the Towanda DailyReview.com:

Robert Packer Hospital reported Monday that David Campbell of Sayre who was critically injured in an area ATV accident on Sunday has died.

Campbell, 55, had been riding a 2005 Honda Rancher ES at 7:45 p.m. on July 6 on Marcy Hill Road in Monroe Township when he was thrown from his vehicle, according to state police.

Campbell, who police stated had not been wearing a helmet, had sustained a severe head injury and was flown to Robert Packer Hospital, police stated.

Here's more coverage of this horrible accident from The Morning Times.

Federal Verdict Against GM in Rollover Lawsuit

Garland Reynolds and his wife, Bonnie, were awarded $3.5 million in connection with the 2002 rollover accident that claimed the life of their son, Matthew. The Reynolds sued GM in 2006, alleging that the design of the 1995 Chevrolet Blazer created stability issues that contributed to the fatal wreck. The jury awarded no punitive damages.

A jury of five men and three women deliberated for nearly three days in U.S. District Court in Gainesville, GA before finding GM at fault.

The jury said to General Motors that the Blazer is unsafe and it should not have been designed without proper stability, attorney for the plaintiff said.

On June 3, 2002, Bonnie Reynolds was driving a 1995 Chevy Blazer on the Interstate with her son in the front seat when the Blazer was struck by a drunk driver who lost control of his Pontiac Sunbird.

The Blazer flipped several times and Matthew Reynolds was ejected. He died the following day in an area hospital.

The driver who struck the Reynolds' car was later convicted of first-degree vehicular homicide and is serving a lengthy prison sentence.

Plaintiffs presented evidence at trial of other rollover accidents involving the Blazer. The plaintiffs contended that the make and model was built with too high a center of gravity for the wheel base, and that the "track," or distance between the wheels, should have been widened to prevent stability problems.

Blazers manufactured from 1995 through 2002 have similar design flaws. The Blazer was subsequently phased out in favor of the TrailBlazer, which has a wider wheelbase. 

Evidence presented at trial called for a recall.

General Motors maintains that the vehicle is safe.

Company spokeswoman Geri Lama said GM was disappointed in the jury's verdict. They contend that the rollover accident is the sole fault of the drunk driver who struck the Blazer. GM is considering its options of an appeal.There was never an offer to settle, according to Plaintiffs attorneys.

GM was represented by a team of King & Spalding attorneys led by partner W. Ray Persons,

The case, in the Northern District of Georgia, is Garland Reynolds Jr. et al., v. General Motors Corp., No. 2:04-CV-106.

Woman awarded $345k for injuries in rear-end automobile accident

Tech devices leave trail of evidence in trucking litigation

Trucking companies are using a variety of hi-tech devices that are changing the face of trucking litigation.

On-board computers, electronic logging, GPS systems and satellite and wireless tracking can provide a wealth of information about an accident and the history of the driver and vehicle.

"Everything that touches a truck these days frankly is electronic," said Morgan Adams, chair-elect of the trucking litigation section of the American Association for Justice.

He noted that on-board recorders can track over 175 characteristics, such as vehicle speed, hard-braking incidents and vehicle maintenance.

This information is a "boon" to plaintiffs' attorneys, who are using it to bring claims against trucking companies for negligent supervision and negligent maintenance as well as spoliation of evidence, said defense attorney Kenneth Abbarno of Reminger & Reminger in Cleveland.

Truckloads of data

The main source of information is the "black box," also known as an electronic control module or electronic data recorder, which records events like hard-braking, cruise control settings, when the truck traveled at various speeds and sudden decelerations.

Newer electronic on-board recorders, known as EOBRs, monitor the speed of a truck as well as the number of driving hours, and can indicate every time a driver goes over the allowed number of hours or drives over the speed limit.

Some carriers have replaced hand-written logbooks with GPS satellite and wireless devices that track a driver's schedule and route and beam the information back to the company.

Other devices are now being introduced that use video cams and radar to track and warn of potential hazards, including blind spots or when a driver is drifting out of a lane. The data is then uploaded to the company computer in real time.

The combined data can help reconstruct an accident.

Teen injured in near-fatal crash gets $14.8M

School liable for teen's car crash after going to drinking party

Tractor-trailer rear-ender results in punitive damages award

A driver was awarded $275,000 for several disc injuries he sustained when his coupe was rear-ened by a tractor-trailer. Thomas J. Ferranti sued Willie Lee Rowell Jr., who was driving for Martin Trucking. He claimed Rowell failed to keep a proper lookout. Ferranti sustained herniations in his neck and back. The jury found that Rowell showed reckless indifference to the interest of others. Of the award, $100,000 was for punitive damages against Rowell. Martin Trucking was not found vicariously liable for punitive damages.

Ferranti v. Martin Trucking, LLC

To see the full report on this case go to VerdictSearch.com

New Case Law on stacking of underinsurance by employees in company owned vehicles

In State Auto Property & Casualty insurance Co. v. Pro Design, P.C. today the District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania (Munley, J.) held that a corporation can avail itself of stacked underinsured motorist benefits even if it waived stacking on a single vehicle policy where it subsequently added two vehicles to the policy and never signed a new waiver of stacking for those additional vehicles. 

The court finds that Sackett II does not apply to a single car policy which is what the Supreme Court says in footnote 5 of Sackett II.  The Court also notes that under Sackett II "the degree that coverage under an after-acquired vehicle provision continues in effect throughout the existing period.  Once that policy period comes to an end, the insurer must obtain a new waiver if an additional vehicle was added during that period."  The fact is that when the single vehicle policy became a multiple vehicle policy the insured was not supposed to be given a chance to "purchase" intra-policy stacking and it did not get a chance to do so.  Thus, the 3 car policy provides stacking.

Motorcycle head injuries up sharply since Pa. changed law

From Philly.com:

Motorcycle head injuries have spiked significantly since the state repealed its law requiring riders to wear helmets, a new study released yesterday found.

The study, conducted by the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, showed a 32 percent increase in motorcycle-related head-injury deaths and a 42 percent increase in head-injury hospitalizations in the two years following the law's repeal in 2003.

Twenty states - including New Jersey, New York, Maryland and West Virginia - have laws requiring all riders to wear helmets.

But in Pennsylvania, only motorcyclists under 21 and riders with fewer than two years' experience who have not taken a safety course are required to wear helmets.

The average cost to treat a head injury in Pennsylvania is $88,000, according to Clare Collins, a spokeswoman for the University of Pittsburgh's School of Public Health.

Kristen Mertz, the study's lead author, said researchers looked at both head injuries and other types of injuries.

"The relatively large increase in head-injury deaths and hospitalizations after the repeal suggests that the law was protecting riders," she said.

Still, motorcycle activists argue they do not need the government to tell them how to ride.

"The government has a responsibility to individuals, and I think they are overstepping their bounds" when they want to start getting involved in helmet laws, said Charles Umbenhauer, lobbyist for Pennsylvania ABATE, a motorcyclist organization that opposes helmet laws.

In a statement issued yesterday, ABATE called the helmet debate an "endless obsession to market one single item of riding gear as the 'solution' to motorcycle deaths and injuries."

Family awarded $5.1 for man killed by drunk driver at work site

A jury awarded $5.1 million to the family of a man who was struck and killed by a drunk driver while working at a road construction site. Donald Lee Fincher Jr. hit Frank Claborn as he was providing security for a construction company that was renovating the West Sam Houston Toll Road. His counsel argued that Fincher was nearly three times over the legal blood-alcohol limit. The family claimed that Claborn was conscious and in pain for about an hour before he died. Fincher stipulated to liability. He offered a consent judgment, but Claborn's wife wouldn't make a counter offer and wouldn't consider a settlement without a trial.

Claborn v. Fincher

New Federal case law on what is required in rejecting UIM insurance coverage

Jury awards boy for hand degloving in crash

Buonaiuto v. Stroud