Recent Blog Posts

What is the Effect on Your Limited Tort Rights When Struck by a Motor Vehicle with an Out-of-State License Plate.

Law Offices of Thomas J. Murphy — Mon, 07 May 2012 07:05:00 GMT

In Pennsylvania, every owner of a registered motor vehicle must obtain automobile insurance on their vehicle pursuant to 75 Pa. C.S. § 1701 et. seq. In 1990 the law was changed to enable vehicle owners to have a choice between the standard automobile insurance policy and a cheaper, less expensive automobile insurance policy. These two types of policies are known as a "full tort" policy and a "limited tort" policy. A "full tort" policy is a traditional policy wherein the insureds on the policy have an unrestricted right to bring a claim against a negligent driver, regardless of the type of injuries sustained. A "limited tort" policy is where the vehicle owner obtains a discount from the insurance carrier and in return for that discount the vehicle owner gives up his or her right to bring a personal injury claim for any injuries that are not considered "serious injuries", regardless of how negligent the other driver may have been. The problem is that the vehicle owner's tort selection is binding on all of the "insureds" under the policy who do not own their own vehicle and are consequently not a named insured on any other policy. Pennsylvania auto law defines an "insured" as anyone residing with the vehicle owner (named insured) who is a spouse or relative of the vehicle owner. Thus, any child, grandchild, sibling, parent, grandparent or spouse (even if married after the auto insurance policy went into effect) may be bound by the houshold vehicle owner's limited tort selection, even though those "insureds" received no money (discount) from the automobile insurance company in exchange for the loss of their constitutional right to bring a claim against a negligent driver for injuries that are not "serious injuries."

Fortunately there are several exceptions to the rule that the limited tort policy prevents you from bringing a personal injury claim. If the facts involved in your collision or injuries meet one of the exceptions, then you may be granted full tort rights under the law. One of the statutory exceptions to the limited tort policy is if the motor vehicle that the negligent driver was operating at the time of the collision was licensed in a state other than the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, then you may be granted full tort rights and allowed to pursue a personal injury claim against the negligent driver, regardless of how serious your injuries are. See 75 Pa. C.S. § 1705(d)(1)(ii). Often times a person injured, particularly a passenger, has no idea and pays no attention to whether the motor vehicle the negligent driver was operating has a Pennsylvania license plate or an out-of-state license plate. You should be able to obtain this information from the police report or your driver if the police were not called and only the drivers exchanged information. As crazy as it sounds, whether the negligently driven vehicle has an out-of-state license plate may be the only way that you can bring a claim for injuries arising out of the collision. So if you are otherwise bound by the limited tort option, double check the license plate on the negligently driven vehicle to confirm whether it is a Pennsylvania license plate or not. It is actually quite common in Philadelphia and surrounding Bucks, Chester, Delaware and Montgomery counties for the negligently driven vehicle to be licensed in the nearby states of New Jersey or Delaware.

The best method of avoiding this issue is to make sure that you or the vehicle owner in your household that is a relative of yours obtains a "full tort" automobile insurance policy. When you realize that the limited tort policy the vehicle owner purchases is binding on every household relative that does not have their own automobile insurance policy, you will realize that the amount of the discount divided by the number of household relatives who lose their rights is not worth the amount of the discount per person. Also, the limited tort policy has no affect on whether another person can bring a negligence claim against you. Your limited tort policy will pay another person injured by your driver's negligence, but may very well prevent you and your household relatvies from bringing an injury claim against a negligent driver that injured you and/or your household relatives.

If you are injured in Pennsylvania by a motor vehicle, you should always consult with an experienced personal injury lawyer to determine whether you have the right to pursue a claim against the negligent driver's insurance carrier for financial compensation for personal injuries, excess medical expenses and lost wages.

Right to Bring a Personal Injury Claim When Injured in a Motor Vehicle Collision While an Occupant of a Commercial Vehicle, Such as a Bus, Taxi Cab, Rental Car or Company Owned Vehicle

Law Offices of Thomas J. Murphy — Mon, 16 Apr 2012 07:05:00 GMT

Whenever you are injured while an occupant of a commercial vehicle that is involved in a motor vehicle collision in Pennsylvania, you automatically have unrestricted full tort rights to pursue a personal injury claim. A commercial vehicle is one that is not owned by an individual, but rather by a business. Examples of commercial vehicles are all types of buses, including SEPTA buses, private buses and tour buses. Additional examples of commercial vehicles are taxi cabs, paratransit vans, rental vehicles, company cars, company pickup trucks, company vans and all types of trucks. Any vehicle that is not a privately owned passenger motor vehicle falls under this category and the injured occupants are entitled to unrestricted full tort rights to pursue a personal injury claim.

In Pennsylvania, all motor vehicle owners when purchasing automobile insurance must select either the traditional unrestricted full tort policy or a discounted limited tort policy that restricts the insured's right to pursue a personal injury claim arising out of all types of motor vehicle collisions. Unfortunately, the vehicle owner's tort selection will also be binding on all of his or her household resident relatives that do not possess their own automobile insurance policy. Thus, the sad reality is that many people have lost their full tort rights and often don't even know it, because the relative in their household that owns a vehicle selected limited tort. For a more detailed discussion on Pennsylvania full tort and limited tort, please see Full Tort / Limited Tort.

Fortunately, a designated exception to limited tort is if an individual is injured while occupying a commercial vehicle or a non-private passenger motor vehicle. Thus, even if you are normally bound by a limited tort selection restricting your right to bring a personal injury claim, you will be entilted to pursue an unrestricted full tort personal injury claim regardless of the severity of the injury if you were occupying a commercial vehicle at the time of the collision.

If you are injured in a motor vehicle collision while occupying a commercial vehicle, such as a bus, paratransit van, taxi cab, rental car or a company owned car, pickup, van or truck, you should always consult with an experienced personal injury lawyer to determine whether you have the right to pursue a claim against the negligent driver's insurance carrier for personal injuries, excess medical expenses and lost wages.

Bicyclist's Rights in a Motor Vehicle Collision

Law Offices of Thomas J. Murphy — Mon, 12 Mar 2012 07:05:00 GMT

A bicyclist has the right of way in a designated bicycle lane. Where there is no designated bicycle travel lane, the bicyclist has the same rights and responsibilities as motor vehicle operators on streets and roadways. Thus, when a bicyclist is in a travel lane on a city street, motor vehicle operators must yield the right of way to the bicyclist before merging into or crossing the bicyclist's lane of travel, just like they would for any other motor vehicle already in the lane of travel that they want to enter or cross. If the motor vehicle operator fails to yield the right of way and strikes the bicyclist, the motor vehicle operator is negligent and will be responsible for the bicyclist's resulting personal injuries. This cuts both ways, as bicyclists must also yield the right of way to motor vehicles that are already in the travel lane that the bicyclist wants to enter or cross. Bicyclists must also adhere to all traffic laws and traffic control devices, such as traffic lights and stop signs, just like motor vehicle operators are required to do.

The number of bicyclists on the streets of Philadelphia has grown dramatically over the past several years, resulting in an increased number of motor vehicle collisions involving bicyclists. The City of Philadelhia has installed designated bicycle travel lanes on certain streets, including Locust and Spruce Streets in center city. Unfortunately, many motor vehicle operators (often suburbonites) are not use to operating alongside bicyclists and do not pay sufficient attention to them. Most motor vehicle operators are busy looking at or for other motor vehicles, but not for individuals on bicycles. This is particularly true after a motor vehicle is parked on the city streets and occupants of the vehicle look for motor vehicle traffic before opening their vehicle's door into the adjacent travel lane, but fail at an alarming rate to look for bicyclists before opening their vehicle's door into the adjacent travel lane. The number of bicyclists injured by parked car doors being opened immediately in front of them has risen substantially.

In Pennsylvania if a bicyclist does not own a motor vehicle and does not live with a relative that owns and insures a motor vehicle, then the automobile insurance policy issued to any of the vehicles involved in the motor vehicle collision that injures the bicyclist would be responsible to pay the bicyclist's medical bills. With regard to medical bills, it does not matter who negligently caused the collision (bicyclist or motor vehicle operator). Payment of medical bills is not based on fault.

Furthermore, as with pedestrians, a person who is struck by a motor vehicle while on a bicycle in Pennsylvania has Full Tort rights. This is true even if the bicyclist selected Limited Tort rights on his or her own automobile insurance policy or would ordinarily be bound by another household relative's selection of Limited Tort rights on their policy. A person struck by a motor vehicle while on a bicycle, is an exception to the Limited Tort option and the bicyclist can bring a personal injury claim for the motor vehicle operator's negligence no matter how serious or not serious that bicyclist's injuries turn out to be.

Unfortunately, as with pedestrians, when a bicyclist is hit by a motor vehicle, the injuries are often more severe,as there is no air bag deployement or steel vehicle frame to lessen the impact. If you are struck by a motor vehicle while a bicyclist or a pedestrian, you should always consult with an experienced personal injury lawyer to determine whether you have the right to pursue a claim for financial compensation against the driver's automobile insurance company for your pain and suffering, medical expenses and lost wages.

Slip and Falls on Black Ice

Law Offices of Thomas J. Murphy — Mon, 06 Feb 2012 08:05:00 GMT

People slip and fall on ice more than snow. Often times the ice appears to look like water, but in reality it is ice. This situation is often referred to as black ice. Because black ice is thin and appears slightly darker than the surrounding pavement it is laying on, it often appears similar to water.

Whether a person injured by a slip and fall on black ice can pursue a personal injury claim in Pennsylvania will depend on the cause of the black ice. Not all black ice is treated the same under Pennsylvania law. Black ice that is caused or created by an entirely natural occurence, such as by rain, sleet or snow that melts and then freezes (often overnight) on the ground into a thin layer of ice is generally not compensable in Pennsylvania. The reason being that the property owner is deemed to not be on notice of this generally slippery condition, and therefore does not have a duty to remove the thin layer of ice. If the property owner owes no duty, then the property owner cannot be held to have negligently breached a duty.

Now at first glance one may believe that all black ice is due to a natural occurrence, but this is not the case. Under Pennsylvania law, anytime the black ice is not caused by an entirely natural occurrence, the injured person may have a right to pursue a personal injury claim for injuries suffered in a slip and fall on black ice. When the black ice is caused or created in part because of the involvement of mankind, then it is no longer caused by an entirely natural occurrence. A common example of where mankind causes, creates or facilitates black ice is where the property owner or their snow removal contractor shovels or plows snow following a snow storm into large piles, mounds or snow banks and over the next several days those piles, mounds and snow banks melt during the day and the melting water runs downhill and then refreezes overnight. Another example is where a bulding has its downspout from its roof gutters depositing water (from rain or melting snow) directly onto a parking lot or sidewalk surface and then the water freezes on that surface. A third common example is where water is caused to pool unnaturally into a puddle due to a defective condition in the pavement or sidewalk, like a pothole or a cracked, broken, depressed or missing section of pavement or sidewalk and that puddle of water then freezes, often overnight when the temperatures are at their coldest. The reason why Pennsylvania law allows a person injured by a slip and fall on black ice caused by the examples in this paragraph to pursue a personal injury claim gets back to notice. Here, once a property owner shovels or plows snow into a certain location or installs his roof gutter downspouts to dispurse roof water directly onto a paved walking surface or allows their property to come into disrepair facilitating water to pool into puddles, that property owner is deemed to be on notice that their action or omission may cause black ice to form at a specific location and now that they are on notice of the possiblity of black ice forming at a certain location on their property, that property owner now has a duty to prevent the black ice from forming and to remove the black ice if it forms, usually by applying salt to the area or by repairing the defective condition on the property that causes the black ice to form, and if the property owner fails to do so then they have breached their duty and they may be held negligent by a Pennsylvania court.

While it may appear that all slip and fall injuries caused by black ice are similar, they are not and they may have very different outcomes in a Pennsylvania court. This is just one of many reasons why you should always consult with an experienced personal injury lawyer who will make certain that you will successfully obtain full compensation from the insurance carrier for the property owner or snow removal contrator for your medical expenses, lost wages and personal injuries arising out of your slip and fall on black ice.

What Constitutes a Tripping Hazard on a Sidewalk or Walking Surface

Law Offices of Thomas J. Murphy — Mon, 09 Jan 2012 08:05:00 GMT

The United States Department of Transportation performed a study that determined that when a person walks normally, their foot rises as low as 3/8 of an inch off the ground. Thus, any object sticking up 3/8 of an inch or higher from a level walking space can be a tripping hazard and can cause a person walking normally to trip and fall and suffer serious personal injuries.

Based on the above, building and maintenance codes allow for a change in height of up to a 1/4 of an inch, as this height is still below the 3/8 of an inch height that the average person may lift his or her foot while walking. However, changes in height above 1/4 of an inch require a specific form of leveling, depending on the amount of change in height and slope. For changes in height between 1/4 to 1/2 inch, the change in height must be beveled or angled so the two separate surfaces meet. Like the edge of a mirror is beveled to reduce the height difference between the surface of the mirror and the wall. For changes in height greater than 1/2 of an inch, the codes require a ramp, such as a handicap ramp that we are all familiry with or a stairway where the height and slope are greater.

Thus, any abrupt change in height on a walking surface that is more than 1/4 of an inch in height and is not beveled or ramped constitutes a tripping hazard and if the property owner fails to repair this known tripping hazard, they will be found to be negligent and responsible for an injured person's medical bills, lost wages and personal injuries. Typical abrupt changes in height on sidewalks and walking surfaces are caused by cracked or broken pavement or raised blocks of concrete due to freeze and thaw cycles or tree roots, etc. Not surprisingly, the tripping hazards that cause the most falls and injuries are the situations where the abrupt change in height is only 3/8 of an inch to 1 inch, as this height change is enough to cause a person to trip and fall, but it is not as readily visible to the average person walking on a sidewalk, walkway, parking lot or other walking surface to see and avoid.

If you or someone you care about trips and falls due to a negligently maintained sidewalk or walking surface and is injured, you should contact an experienced personal injury lawyer with 25 years of experience handling trip and fall and slip and fall claims to ensure that you or the person you care about is fully compensated for his or her medical expenses, lost wages and personal injures suffered as a result of their fall.

Hit and Run and Uninsured Motor Vehicle Accidents

Law Offices of Thomas J. Murphy — Mon, 05 Sep 2011 07:05:00 GMT

If you or a loved one is injured in a motor vehicle collision that is caused by a hit and run driver that flees the scene before you can obtain their information or by a driver that is uninsured, you may still have a remedy to obtain compensation for your injuries. In Pennsylvania, all automobile insurance policies offer as an option uninsured motorist (UM) coverage for an amount up to the liability limits selected on the same automobile insurance policy. Uninsured motorist benefits are extra coverage that a person can obtain from their own insurance company that will protect the policyholder and all insureds under the policy in case they are injured in a collision that is caused by an uninsured or an unidentified driver, such as a hit and run driver. UM benefits will pay the injured party's personal injury claim, consisting of pain and suffering, excess medical expenses and lost wages that the negligent driver's automobile insurance should have paid. The insurance company that pays uninsured motorist benefits to the injured victims will thereafter have the right to seek reimbursement (subrogation) from the uninsured driver, if their identity is known. But the important point is that the injured victims in the collision are compensated for their injuries caused by the negligent uninsured or unidentified driver.

As mentioned above, uninsured motorist coverage is an option on automobile insurance policies issued in Pennsylvania. So there is no guarantee that UM benefits are available in each collision. Fortunately, a person injured by an uninsured or unidentified driver may have several automobile insurance policies available to them, one or more of which may contain uninsured motorist benefits. The first automobile insurance policy the injured person must look to is the policy insuring the vehicle they were occupying at the time of the collision. The second policy to look to is their own automobile insurance policy that they are a named insured on. The third policy for the injured person to look to is the automobile insurance policy or policies issued to all household relatives of the injured person, as the injured person is also an "insured" under these policies as long as they are related to and live with the policyholder (such as a grandparent, parent, sibling, child or grandchild).

Finally, if a person injured by an uninsured or unidentified driver cannot obtain UM benefits under any of the above three automobile insurance policies, that injured person may under certain circumstances obtain payment of their personal injury claim from the Pennsylvania Assigned Claims Plan (75 Pa.C.S. Sec. 1751 et seq.).

If you or a loved one is struck by an uninsured or unidentified motor vehicle while the occupant of a motor vehicle or as a pedestrian, you should always consult with an experienced personal injury lawyer to determine whether you have the ability to pursue a claim for personal injuries, medical expenses and lost wages caused by a negligent driver.

Pedestrian's Rights in a Motor Vehicle Collision

Law Offices of Thomas J. Murphy — Mon, 18 Jul 2011 07:05:00 GMT

A pedestrian has the right of way in a crosswalk. It does not matter if the crosswalk is not properly painted onto the street surface. All intersections have crosswalk areas going from one corner to the other two corners, which is a continuation of the pedestrian sidewalk/walkway across the street and is the area designated for pedestrians to cross, regardless of whether the painted lines are present or not. The pedestrian must still obey traffic lights and stop signs. When a pedestrian has a green light and is crossing an intersecting street within the crosswalk, that pedestrian has the right of way over all motor vehicles in the intersection. If a motor vehicle operator does not yield the right of way to the pedestrian, while the pedestrian is in the crosswalk and strikes the pedestrian, then the driver is negligent and will be found liable for the personal injuries the pedestrian incurs.

In Pennsylvania if a pedestrian does not own a motor vehicle and does not live with a relative that owns and insures a motor vehicle, then the automobile insurance policy issued to any of the vehicles involved in the motor vehicle collision that injures the pedestrian would be responsible to pay the pedestrian's medical bills. With regard to medical bills, it does not matter if the pedestrian was in the crosswalk area or at fault for the collision. Payment of medical bills is not based on fault.

Finally, a person who is struck by a motor vehicle while a pedestrian in Pennsylvania has Full Tort rights. Even if that person selected Limited Tort rights on their own automobile insurance policy or would ordinarily be bound by another household relative's selection of Limited Tort rights on their policy. A person struck by a motor vehicle while a pedestrian is an exception to the Limited Tort option and the pedestrian can bring a personal injury claim for the driver's negligence no matter how serious or not serious that pedestrian's injuries turn out to be.

If you are struck by a motor vehicle while a pedestrian, you should always consult with an experienced personal injury lawyer to determine whether you have the right to pursue a claim against the driver's insurance carrier for personal injuries and/or medical expenses and lost wages.

Time Requirements for Property Owners to Remove Snow From Sidewalks in Boroughs and Townships in the Greater Philadelphia Area

Law Offices of Thomas J. Murphy — Mon, 14 Feb 2011 09:00:00 GMT

Slip and falls on snow and ice is a very serious hazard in the Philadelphia area during the winter months. The time period to remove snow and ice from sidewalks varies from township to township in the Greater Philadelphia area. The majority of Townships and Boroughs require the sidewalks to be cleared of snow and ice within 24 hours after the precipitation has ceased. However, some Townships and Boroughs require their sidewalks to be cleared of snow and ice sooner.

The majority of Townships and Boroughs have language similar to the Borough of Media's code language, which is as follows:

§ 253-43 Snow Removal; Terminology

A. Every owner, occupant and/or tenant of any property which abuts a sidewalk or public walkway in the Borough of Media shall remove or cause to be removed all snow from that sidewalk or walkway within 24 hours after the national or local weather service determines that the major accumulation of a storm has ended. The pathway shall be cleared and create a pathway with a minimum width of three feet. If the owner, occupant or tenant chooses to not personally clear the sidewalk or walkway, he or she shall contract another party to clear it for them meeting any and all requirements of this article.

B. An "owner, occupant and/or tenant" are defined for the purposes of this article as any or all of the following, but limited to an individual, person, partnership, business, municipality, and/or a corporation, and the term "he/she" shall be applicable to all such terms.

While not an exhaustive list, the following Townships and Boroughs require all snow and ice to be removed from sidewalks and walkways within 24 hours:

Borough of Lansdowne, Code §294-1
Borough of Media, Code §253-43
Borough of West Chester, Code §95-18
Borough of Yeadon, Code §680.04
Municipality of Norristown, Code §270-1
Haverford Township, Code §138-3
Newtown Township (Newtown Square), Code §145-12
Radnor Township, Code §250
Springfield Township, Code §120.6
Thornbury Township (Delaware County), Code §21-201
Upper Darby Township (including Drexel Hill)

However, as stated above, several Townships and Boroughs require snow and ice removal from all sidewalks and walkways sooner than 24 hours. The Borough of Darby requires snow and ice removal within 12 hours, pursuant to its Code §122-1. Likewise, Marple Township requires snow and ice removal within 12 hours, pursuant to its Code §261-32. The most restictive suburban Township or Borough appears to be the Borough of Doylestown, which requires snow and ice removal within 10 hours, pursuant to its Code §21-251.

If your Borough or Township is not listed above, you can go to your Borough or Township's website to locate the Code or Ordinance that determines the time period in which snow and ice must be removed from all sidewalks and walkways. But from the above, it is clear that no Borough or Township permits its residents and business owners to go more than 24 hours before they must remove all snow and ice from their sidewalks and walkways and your Borough or Township may require removal sooner.

If you or someone you care about slips and falls and is injured due to a property owner or tenant's negligent failure to timely shovel and/or salt their sidewalk to remove snow and ice from their sidewalk, you should always consult with an experienced personal injury lawyer before you discuss your injury claim with the sidewalk owner's insurance company. The consultation is always free at this law office.

Duty Owed by Businesses to Customers Walking on Their Parking Lots, Sidewalks, Showroom Floors - Slip and Falls, Trip and Falls

Law Offices of Thomas J. Murphy — Thu, 27 Jan 2011 09:00:00 GMT

In Pennsylvania when a person enters another's land, under the law they are either a trespasser, a licensee or an invitee. The Possessor of land owes a different duty to each type of entrant upon his or her land. A trespasser is a person who enters or remains upon the land without the permission of the possessor of land. Consequently the possessor of land owes a trespasser the least duty of care to make the premises safe.

A licensee is a person who is privileged or allowed to enter the land with the possessor of land's consent. However, a licensee enters the land of another solely for his or her own purpose. The person entering the land of another does not enter the land for either a business or social purpose of the possessor of land. When a person walks on the sidewalk of another for that person's sole purpose of crossing the land to get to another destination, that person is considered a licensee. The possessor of land, or in this example the sidewalk, owes the person walking on the sidewalk a greater duty of care than for a trespasser as the person was permitted to walk on the sidewalk by either privilege or the owner's permission. However, since the possessor of land did not invite the person onto the sidewalk and the person is not on the sidewalk for any purpose related to the possessor of land, the possessor of land does not owe the licensee the same duty that would be owed to an invitee.

A business invitee is a person who is invited by the possessor of land to enter or remain on the land for a purpose directly or indirectly connected with business dealings with the possessor of land. A customer on a store's property is a business invitee, as they are invited by the store to enter the land for the store owner's business purposes. Since the possessor of land invites the person onto the land for the possessor of land's purposes, the possessor of land owes an invitee the greatest duty of care to make and keep the premises safe.

Pennsylvania applies the Restatement (Second) of Torts §§ 343 and 343A to determine a possessor of land's duty to a business invitee. Under §§ 343 and 343A the possessor of land is required to use reasonable care in the maintenance and use of his or her property and to protect his or her invitees from foreseeable harm. A possessor of land is also required to inspect the premises and to discover dangerous conditions and to use care not to injure a business invitee by negligent activity. A possessor of land is liable for harm caused to his or her invitees by a condition on the land if he or she

(a) knows or by the exercise of reasonable care would discover the condition, and should realize that it involves an unreasonable risk of harm, and

(b) should expect that his invitees will not discover or realize the danger, or will fail to protect themselves against it, and

A possessor of land is liable to his or her invitees for any harm he or she should have anticipated, regardless of whether the danger is known or obvious.

What distinguishes a possessor of land's obligation to a business visitor from its obligation to a licensee is the duty of inspection. The business visitor, who was invited onto the land for the possessor of land's business purposes is entitled to expect that the possessor of land has prepared the land to make it safe for the business visitor. Thus, the possessor of land is anticipating the arrival of the business visitor and has the higher duty to inspect the premises and prepare it in a safe way for the business visitor's use. Here a possessor of land does not have the defense that the dangerous condition is known or obvious to the business invitee (as the possessor of land has with a licensee). Even if the condition is known or obvious, the possessor of land has the duty to inspect and remove the dangerous condition. Thus, if upon inspection the possessor of land discovers a patch of black ice in the parking lot or on its sidewalk or a liquid spill in aisle 4, the possessor of land has the obligation to its business visitors to remove these dangerous conditions so that its business visitors will not slip and fall on the ice or liquid spill. The possessor of land cannot rely upon the belief that the patch of ice or liquid spill will become known or obvious to its business invitees.

If you or someone you know is injured due to a slip and fall or trip and fall on a business' sidewalk, walkway, parking lot, steps, floor, escalator, elevator, etc., you should contact a Philadelphia personal injury attorney with over 20 years experience to make sure that your case is handled properly and that you obtain maximum compensation for your injuries, medical expenses and lost wages.

Duty Owed by Homeowners to Persons Walking on Their Sidewalks - Slip and Falls, Trip and Falls

Law Offices of Thomas J. Murphy — Fri, 21 Jan 2011 09:00:00 GMT

In Pennsylvania when a person enters another's land, under the law they are either a trespasser, a licensee or an invitee. The possessor of the land owes a different duty to each type of entrant upon his or her land. A trespasser is a person who enters or remains upon the land without the permission of the possessor of land. Consequently the possessor of land owes a trespasser the least duty of care to make the premises safe.

An invitee is a person who is invited by the possessor of land to enter or remain on the land for social or business purposes. A customer in a store is a business invitee, as they are invited by the store to enter the land for the store owner's business purposes. Since the possessor of land invites the person onto the land for the possessor of land's purposes, the possessor of land owes an invitee the greatest duty of care to make and keep the premises safe.

A licensee is between a trespasser and an invitee. A licensee is a person who is privileged or allowed to enter the land with the possessor of land's consent. However, a licensee enters the land of another solely for his or her own purpose. The person entering the land of another does not enter the land for either a business or social purpose of the possessor of land. When a person walks on the sidewalk of another for that person's sole purpose of crossing the land to get to another destination, that person is considered a licensee. The possessor of land, or in this example the sidewalk, owes the person walking on the sidewalk a greater duty of care than for a trespasser as the person was permitted to walk on the sidewalk by either privilege or the owner's permission. However, since the possessor of land did not invite the person onto the sidewalk and the person is not on the sidewalk for any purpose related to the possessor of land, the possessor of land does not owe the licensee the same duty that would be owed to an invitee.

Pennsylvania applies the Restatement (Second) of Torts §342 to determine a possessor of land's duty to a licensee. Under §342 the possessor of land is liable for personal injuries sustained by a licensee where:

(a) the possessor knows or has reason to know of the condition and should realize that it involved an unreasonable risk of harm to such licensees and should expect that they will not discover or realize the danger, and

(b) the possessor fails to exercise reasonable care to make the condition safe, or to warn the licensees of the condition and the risk involved, and

(c) the licensees do not know or have reason to know of the condition and the risk involved.

When a person slips and falls or trips and falls as a licensee on another's sidewalk, they must prove all three elements above to prevail on a negligence claim against the possessor of land. Typically, the most litigated issue is whether the injured person knew or had reason to know of the dangerous condition and the risk involved. For example, if a sidewalk has a hole in it due to the possessor of land's negligent maintenance of the sidewalk and on a bright sunny afternoon with nothing obscuring the hole a person/licensee trips on the hole and falls, that person may have a hard time proving the third element. However, take the same set of facts, but now have the hole covered by falling autumn leaves and the injury occurring at night, both acting to obscure the hole for the pedestrian/licensee to see. Under the latter version, the injured person would probably prevail on establishing all 3 elements necessary to successfully bring a personal injury claim based on the possessor of land's breach of duty to keep the sidewalk safe. The same differing results can occur with a slip and fall on an icy sidewalk. If the ice is open and obvious or the possessor of land has placed a warning cone over the icy spot, then it will be hard for the injured person/licensee to prevail for a slip and fall claim. On the other hand if the same patch of ice is subsequently covered by a dusting of snow, camouflaging the ice and no warning cone is present, the injured person/licensee will have a greater chance of prevailing on his or her slip and fall claim due to the icy sidewalk.

If the injured person/licensee is able to establish all three elements to prove the possessor of land's breach of duty to the licensee, then the injured person is entitled to compensation for his or her injuries, medical expenses and lost wages. As discussed in the examples above, not all trip and fall or slip and fall injury claims are alike and the results can vary greatly depending on the specific set of facts for each fall. If you or someone you know is injured due to a slip and fall or trip and fall on another's sidewalk, walkway, parking lot, steps or floor, you should contact a Philadelphia personal injury lawyer with over 20 years experience to make sure that your case is handled properly and that you obtain maximum compensation for your injuries, medical expenses and lost wages.

Slip and Falls, Trip and Falls on Streets and State Roads Owned by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

Law Offices of Thomas J. Murphy — Mon, 17 Jan 2011 09:00:00 GMT

Pennsylvania is technically a Commonwealth and not a State. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is immune from law suits for any personal injury claims pursuant to 1 Pa. C.S. §2310 and 42 Pa. C.S. §8521. Fortunately, there are nine exceptions to the general rule of immunity and two of them involves streets, roads and highways owned by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.. 42 Pa. C.S. § 8522(b)(4) holds that the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania may be liable for injuries caused by a dangerous condition of streets, roads and highways owned or possessed by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 42 Pa. C.S. § 8522(b)(5) holds that the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania may be liable for injuries caused by a dangerous condition of Commonwealth streets, roads and highways created by potholes or sinkholes or other similar conditions created by natural elements, except that for the injured person to recover, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania must have had actual written notice of the pothole or sinkhole a sufficient time prior to the plaintiff's injury to have had time to repair the dangerous condition. Thus, where the street or road such as a state route or a state highway in question is owned or possessed by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania a person injured while walking on or crossing that road may be able to pursue a negligence claim against the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

However, it should be noted that exceptions to Commonwealth agency immunity are strictly interpreted by the court and so the exception is often restricted to the letter of the law. Consequently, for the street exception the courts have held the language "a dangerous condition of" a Commonwealth street, road or highway to limit the exception to injuries that occur as a result of a defect or dangerous condition that derived, originated or had as its source the the road itself. In layman's terms, the defect or dangerous condition that causes a person to slip or trip must be caused by a defect or dangerous condition with the roadway itself. For example, dangerous conditions laying on top of the roadway such as a banana peel, spilled oil or liquid, snow, ice, rock salt, etc. are not considered dangerous conditions caused by the street itself and thus, have been held by the courts to not fall within the strict language of the street exception to the general rule of immunity. Examples where the dangerous condition was caused by the roadway itself, and thus fall within the street exception to the rule of general immunity, are where a person trips and falls over a cracked, broken or raised section of street, making the walking surface unlevel and a tripping hazard. An example where a person who slips and falls on ice on a Commonwealth street or roadway that would fall within the sidewalk/real property exception to the general rule of immunity is where a cracked, broken section of street creates a depression or pothole type situation which then causes water to pool in that isolated area which subsequently turns to ice causing a person to slip and fall due to the dangerous slippery condition. Because the dangerous condition, the ice, in this latter example was caused by the defective street itself, i.e. the cracked, broken blacktop that created the depression or pothole, the person who slipped on this particular patch of ice resulting in personal injuries may be able to pursue a personal injury claim against the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. However, as stated in Pothole exception, if a person is injured due to a pothole or sinkhole, that person must prove that the Commonwealth had actual written notice of the hole prior to that person being injured and that the Commonwealth failed to timely repair the pothole prior to that person's injury, which can be difficult to prove.

If an injured person's claim does fall within the street or pothole exceptions to the general rule of immunity, then the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania may be required to compensate the injured person up to the statutory limit of $250,000, pursuant to 42 Pa. C.S. §8528(b).

Whenever a person slips and falls or trips and falls due to a dangerous or defective condition with the walking surface and is injured, they should contact a Philadelphia personal injury lawyer with 25 years of experience to determine whether they are entitled to compensation for their medical bills, lost wages and pain and suffering from the party responsible to inspect, maintain and repair the street, sidewalk or walkway in question.

Slip and Falls, Trip and Falls on Sidewalks and Real Property Owned by SEPTA

Law Offices of Thomas J. Murphy — Mon, 10 Jan 2011 09:00:00 GMT

SEPTA, otherwise known as the SouthEastern Pennsylvania Transit Authority was created by the State of Pennsylvania and is a "Commonwealth agency." As a Commonwealth agency, SEPTA, as well as all state created agencies, is immune from suit for any personal injury claims pursuant to 1 Pa. C.S. §2310 and 42 Pa. C.S. §8521. Fortunately, there are nine exceptions to the general rule of immunity and one of them involves sidewalks and real property owned by the Commonwealth agency. 42 Pa. C.S. § 8522(b)(4) holds that a Commonwealth agency may be liable for injuries caused by a dangerous condition of sidewalks and real property owned or possessed by the Commonwealth agency. Thus, where the sidewalk, walkway, stairs, step, station floor or platform in question is owned or possessed by SEPTA, a person injured on that sidewalk or real property may be able to pursue a negligence claim against SEPTA.

However, it should be noted that exceptions to Commonwealth agency immunity are strictly interpreted by the court and so the exception is often restricted to the letter of the law. Consequently, for the sidewalk/real property exception the courts have held the language "a dangerous condition of" sidewalks or real property to limit the exception to injuries that occur as a result of a defect or dangerous condition that derived, originated or had as its source the sidewalk or real property itself. In layman's terms, the defect or dangerous condition that causes a person to slip or trip must be caused by a defect or dangerous condition with the sidewalk, walkway, stairs, step, station floor or platform itself. For example, dangerous conditions laying on top of the sidewalk, walkway, stairs, step, station floor or platform such as a banana peel, spilled liquid, snow, ice, rock salt, etc. are not considered dangerous conditions caused by the sidewalk or real property itself and thus, have been held by the courts to not fall within the strict language of the sidewalk/real estate exception to the general rule of immunity. Examples where the dangerous condition was caused by the sidewalk or real property itself, and thus fall within the sidewalk/real property exception to the rule of general immunity, are where a person trips and falls over a cracked, broken or raised section of sidewalk or real property, making the walking surface unlevel and a tripping hazard. An example where a person who slips and falls on ice on a sidewalk or real property that would fall within the sidewalk/real property exception to the general rule of immunity is where a cracked, broken section of sidewalk or real property creates a depression or pothole type situation which then causes water to pool in that isolated area which subsequently turns to ice causing a person to slip and fall due to the dangerous slippery condition. Because the dangerous condition, the ice, in this latter example was caused by the defective sidewalk or real property itself, i.e. the cracked, broken concrete that created the depression or pothole, the person who slipped on this particular patch of ice resulting in personal injuries may be able to pursue a personal injury claim against SEPTA.

If an injured person's claim does fall within the sidewalk/real property exception to the general rule of immunity, then the Commonwealth agency may be required to compensate the injured person up to the statutory limit of $250,000, pursuant to 42 Pa. C.S. §8528(b).

Whenever a person slips and falls or trips and falls on a sidewalk, walkway, stairs, step, station floor or platform due to a dangerous or defective condition and is injured, they should contact an experienced Philadelphia personal injury lawyer with 25 years of experience to determine whether they are entitled to compensation for their medical bills, lost wages and pain and suffering from the party responsible to inspect, maintain and repair the sidewalk, walkway, stairs, step, station floor, platform or other walking surface in question.

Slip and Falls, Trip and Falls on Real Property Possessed by City of Philadelphia, Local Townships or School Districts in Pa.

Law Offices of Thomas J. Murphy — Tue, 04 Jan 2011 09:00:00 GMT

The City of Philadelphia, as well as all cities, towns and school districts in Pennsylvania are "local governmental agencies." As a local governmental agency, the The City of Philadelphia, as well as all cities, towns and school districts are immune from suit, for any personal injuries or property damage claims pursuant to 42 Pa. C.S. §8541. Fortunately, there are eight exceptions to the general rule of immunity and one of them involves real property owned by the local governmental agency. 42 Pa. C.S. § 8542(b)(3) holds that a local governmental agency may be liable for injuries caused by the negligent care, custody or control of real property in the possession of the local governmental agency. It should be noted that this exception does not pertain to sidewalks or streets, as they are covered by separate exceptions to the general rule of governmental immunity under 42 Pa. C.S. § 8542(b)(6) & (7). The real property exception pertains to any other real property in the possession of the local governmental agency, such as walkways, interior floors and hallways, staircases, parking lots, etc. Thus, where a defective condition is present on real property in the possession of the local governmental agency due to the local governmental agency's negliegence, and that condition causes an injury, the person injured may be able to pursue a negligence claim against the local governmental agency.

However, it should be noted that exceptions to local governmental agency immunity are strictly interpreted by the court and so the exception is often restricted to the letter of the law. Fortunately the wording in this exception 'the care, custody or control of real property" is the most liberal language used in any of the exceptions to the general rule of immunity. For example the exceptions for sidewalks and streets to the general rule of immunity contains the language "a dangerous condition of" sidewalks or streets. For an injured person to be able to bring a claim against a local governmental agency under the street or sidewalk exceptions, the defect or dangerous condition that causes a person to slip or trip on a sidewalk or street must be caused by a defect or dangerous condition with the sidewalk or street itself. Dangerous conditions laying on top of the sidewalk or street, such as a banana peel, snow, ice, rock salt, etc. are not considered dangerous conditions caused by the sidewalk or street itself and thus, have been held by the courts to not fall within the strict language of the sidewalk or street exceptions to the general rule of immunity. Fortunately, the legislature used the more liberal term "care, custody or control of" for the real property exception. Thus, this exception includes injuries caused by negligent care, negligent custody or negligent control of real property, which in additon to defective conditions of the real property itself (such as cracks in the pavement) this exception also includes dangerous conditions on top of walking surfaces, such as a banana peel, grease, snow, ice, rock salt, etc. and where the dangerous condition of or on top of the real property causes injuries to a person, the local governmental agency may be liable.

If an injured person's claim does fall within the real property exception to the general rule of immunity, then the local governmental agency may be required to compensate the injured person up to the statutory limit of $500,000, pursuant to 42 Pa. C.S. §8553.

Whenever a person slips and falls or trips and falls on real property in the possession of a local governmenal agency, such as the City of Philadelphia, a local township or school district due to a dangerous or defective condition and is injured, they should contact a Philadelphia personal injury attorney with over 20 years of experience to determine whether they are entitled to compensation for their medical bills, lost wages and pain and suffering from the party responsible to inspect, clean, maintain and repair the real property in question.

Time Requirement for Philadelphia Businesses and Residents to Remove Snow and Ice From Sidewalks

Law Offices of Thomas J. Murphy — Thu, 30 Dec 2010 16:00:00 GMT

To prevent pedestrians slipping and falling on snow and ice covered sidewalks, property owners, businesses, tenants and residents responsible for their sidewalks must clear a path free of snow and ice at least 36 inches wide on their sidewalk including the curb cuts within six hours of the end of a snowfall or freezing rain. They can not shovel or sweep the snow into the street. The penalty for violating this regulation can range from a minimum fine of $50 up to $300 for each violation. To report a sidewalk or curb cut that has not been cleared, residents may call the Philadelphia Streets Department Customer Affairs Unit at (215) 686-5560. For all City services dial 3-1-1.

The specific law pertaining to snow removal in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania is Philadelphia Code 10-720, which states as follows:

PHILADELPHIA CODE 10-720 REGARDING SNOW REMOVAL FROM SIDEWALKS

(1) the owner, agent, and tenants of any building or premise shall clear a path of not less than 36 inches in width on all sidewalks abutting the building or premises within 6 (six) hours after the snow has ceased to fall. The path shall be thoroughly cleared of snow and ice. Where the width of any pavement measured from the property line to the curb is less than 3 (three) feet, the path cleared may be only 12 inches in width. When the building in question is a multifamily dwelling the owner or his agent shall be responsible for compliance with the requirements of this section.

(2) Snow or ice removed from sidewalks, driveways, or other areas shall not be placed or piled in the street.

(3) Any person who violates this Section shall be subject to the provisions and penalties set forth in 10-718 and 10-719.

The penalty for violating this provision can range from "a minimum fine of fifty dollars ($50) to no more than three hundred dollars ($300) for each violation."

In addition to the above, private plows piling snow in the street after the Philadelphia Streets Department forces have gone through to clear the roadway is illegal as well as a hazard to drivers and pedestrians.

If you or someone you care about slips and falls and is injured due to a property owner or tenant's failure to timely shovel and/or salt their sidewalk to remove snow and ice from their sidewalk, you should always consult with an experienced Philadelphia personal injury lawyer before you discuss your injury claim with the sidewalk owner's insurance company. The consultation is always free at this law office.

Slip and Falls, Trip and Falls on Streets Owned by the City of Philadelphia, Municipalities and Local Townships in Pennsylvania

Law Offices of Thomas J. Murphy — Mon, 20 Dec 2010 09:00:00 GMT

The City of Philadelphia, as well as all cities, municipalities and townships in Pennsylvania are "local governmental agencies." As a local governmental agency, the The City of Philadelphia, as well as all cities, municipalities and townships are immune from suit, for any personal injuries or property damage claims pursuant to 42 Pa. C.S. §8541. Fortunately, there are eight exceptions to the general rule of immunity and one of them involves streets owned by the local governmental agency. 42 Pa. C.S. § 8542(b)(6) holds that a local governmental agency may be liable for injuries caused by a dangerous condition of streets owned by a local governmental agency. Thus, where the street in question is owned by the City of Philadelphia or local municipality or township, a person injured on that street may be able to pursue a negligence claim against the local governmental agency that owns the street.

However, it should be noted that exceptions to local governmental agency immunity are strictly interpreted by the court and so the exception is often restricted to the letter of the law. Consequently, for the street exception the courts have held the language "a dangerous condition of streets" to limit the exception to injuries that occur as a result of a defect or dangerous condition that derived, originated or had as its source the street itself. In layman's terms, the defect or dangerous condition that causes a person to slip or trip on the street must be caused by a defect or dangerous condition with the street itself. For example, dangerous slippery conditions laying on top of the street, such as an oil stain, snow, ice, rock salt, etc. are not considered dangerous conditions caused by the street itself and thus, have been held by the courts to not fall within the strict language of the street exception to the general rule of immunity. Examples where the dangerous condition was caused by the street itself, and thus falling within the street exception to the rule of general immunity, are where a person trips and falls over a section of cracked or broken pavement making the street unlevel and a tripping hazard. An example where a person who slips and falls on ice on a street that would fall within the street exception to the general rule of immunity is where a pothole or broken section of street creates a depression which then causes water to pool in that isolated area which subsequently turns to ice causing a person to slip and fall due to the dangerous slippery condition. Because the dangerous condition, the ice, in this latter example was caused by the defective street surface itself, i.e. the cracked, broken pavement that created the depression or pothole, the person who slipped on this particular patch of ice resulting in personal injuries may be able to pursue a personal injury claim against the City of Philadelphia, municipality or local township that owns the street.

If an injured person's claim does fall within the street exception to the general rule of immunity, then the local governmental agency may be required to compensate the injured person up to the statutory liability limit of $500,000, pursuant to 42 Pa. C.S. §8553.

Whenever a person slips and falls or trips and falls on a street due to a dangerous or defective condition and is injured, they should contact an experienced Philadelphia personal injury attorney to determine whether they are entitled to compensation for their medical bills, lost wages and pain and suffering from the party responsible to inspect, maintain and repair the street in question.