Philadelphia Injury Lawyer Blog

A recent construction injury case decided by a Philadelphia jury illustrates the legal principal of comparative negligence. Many times a client will ask me, “What if I was partly at fault in the accident?” In the case of Bell v. Lafayette College, a roofer fell off a ladder while working in the rain at Lafayette College. He fractured his heel and shoulder and claimed he could not return to work. The Philadelphia jury awarded a $2.38 million dollar verdict. David Beil, 47, sued the college and two contractors, Telesis Construction and Masonry Preservation. The contractors settled during trial for $900,000 each. Beil asserted at trial that despite wet and muddy conditions due to rain, Lafayette College prohibited him and other construction workers from using an indoor stairway to the roof, which would have been much safer to access the roof. Instead the construction worker used a ladder. The defense attorney for the college argued that it was Beil’s own fault for deciding to climb a wet and muddy ladder in the rain without permission. The Philadelphia County jury on Oct. 27 found that Telesis was 50% liable, Lafayette College was 35% liable, Masonry was 10% liable and Beil was 5% liable. It awarded $6.8 million. Because the college was 35% liable, Beil was awarded $2.38 million of the $6.8 million dollar verdict.

This illustrates the legal concept of comparative negligence in a personal injury case, which is one of the main questions to answer in any slip and fall accident. Under Pennsylvania and New Jersey law, you may still recover damages if you are partially at fault, unless a judge or jury finds you to be more than 50% responsible for your own injury. In other words, if you were found to be 40% at fault, and the property owner was found to be 60% at fault, you can recover damages for your slip and fall equal to 60% of the amount awarded by the jury. This is known as "comparative negligence". There is no formula for arriving at a precise number for a person's comparative negligence. You need an experienced slip and fall lawyer to negotiate for your settlement with an insurance adjuster or possibly argue your case to a jury at trial to discuss all of the factors that might have caused the accident.

Source: www.verdictsearch.com.

Pennsylvania attorneys face new obligations in personal injury and workers’ compensation cases when receiving a settlement, verdict or award. On July 7, 2006, Governor Rendell signed Act 109 (effective September 5, 2006), which amends Title 23 of the Domestic Relations Code and allows the Department of Public Welfare to intercept child support payments that are past due from lump sum monetary verdicts, awards or settlements paid by defendants, insurance companies and workers’ compensation sources. The law states that no payment can be made until an outstanding child support obligation is satisfied.

For example, if a plaintiff in a personal injury case in Philadelphia settles the case, the plaintiff must provide her attorney with a statement containing his name, address, date of birth, social security number and written documentation as to whether back due payments exist from the Pennsylvania child support enforcement system website. The attorney must then obtain a report from the website and check to see if there is any outstanding arrears or lien.

In Pennsylvania workers’ compensation cases, the workers’ compensation judges are requesting this information be presented to them before a settlement is approved. According to the Pennsylvania Department of Labor & Industry, no order providing for a payment shall be entered by the workers’ compensation judge unless the prevailing claimant provides the judge with written documentation of arrears from the Pennsylvania Child Support Enforcement System Web site, or, if no arrears exist, written documentation from the Web site indicating no arrears. The judge shall order payment of the lien for overdue support to the department’s state disbursement unit from the net proceeds due the claimant. The Pennsylvania Department of Labor & Industry, Bureau of Workers’ Compensation has the forms listed on their website to comply with Act 109.

I am proud to be a “Philadelphia Lawyer.” This term, Philadelphia lawyer, has always been synonymous with a cunning or shrewd lawyer, a super lawyer, who is able to use the technicalities of the law in his or her favor. But the origin of the term, Philadelphia Lawyer, pre-dates the founding of this country. The term was originally applied to Andrew Hamilton who obtained the acquittal of a German printer by the name of John Peter Zenger. Zenger was being tried on the charge of publishing "seditious libels” or treasonable defamation in New York in 1735. No one wanted to take Zenger's case. Zenger could not find one New York lawyer to defend him. But Hamilton did agree to take the case and in New York his argument to the jury on behalf of Zenger was spellbinding. Hamilton conceded that Zenger had printed libels about Royalist governor William Cosby. But in his closing argument, Hamilton argued that the law as it stood was both immoral and wrongly applied and ought to be nullified by the jury. He told the jury that their verdict was more than whether Zenger was guilty, but rather was about freedom of exposing and opposing power and government by speaking and writing the truth. In short, 41 years before the Declaration of Independence and 50 years before the Constitution, Hamilton argued for the First Amendment and freedom on the press. Zenger was acquitted. It was said that when the jury returned its verdict those in the galleries exclaimed: "Only a Philadelphia lawyer could have done it!" As noted by the Philadelphia Bar Association web site, “Ever since then the term "Philadelphia lawyer" has come to characterize a particularly adept lawyer: more clever; craftier; a lawyer who will find a way to prevail for his/her client.