Philadelphia Injury Lawyer Blog

As a Philadelphia injury lawyer, I often receive questions about an injury suffered by someone who slip and fell on a sidewalk or street that was covered with ice and snow. When must a person remove snow or ice from their own sidewalk or property to prevent an accident?

Under Pennsylvania law, the courts have adopted the “hills and ridges” doctrine. This legal doctrine provides that an owner or occupier of land is not liable for general slippery conditions from the natural accumulation of snow or ice following a recent snowfall as long as the owner of the property has not permitted the ice and snow to unreasonable accumulate in ridges or elevations. However, a recent slip and fall case near Philadelphia illustrates that this doctrine only applies where the snow and ice are the result of an entirely natural accumulation and not after negligent or deficient snow plowing and icing.

In Harvey v. Rouse Chamberlin, Ltd., 901 A.2d 523 (Pa. Super. 2006), the Superior Court of Pennsylvania discussed at length the hills and ridges doctrine. In that case, a Philadelphia lawyer brought a lawsuit on behalf of Nancy Harvey when she slip and fell while walking on a street in the Windtree Development in Plumsteadville Township, Bucks County. On a winter day in January, it began to snow in the development and the snow continued through the early morning hours. After it had stopped snowing, and the roads had been plowed, Nancy Harvey decided to take a walk in the development. During her walk, Nancy walked on the sidewalk, but, at times, had to walk on the street as portions of the sidewalk had not been cleared. Nancy observed that some portions of the road were covered with packed down snow from being plowed and that there were patches of cleared asphalt. As Nancy approached the sidewalk in front of a particular home in the development, she observed that there was snow on the sidewalk. Consequently, Nancy decided to walk in the road, which appeared to be clear and dry. While walking in the road, Nancy slipped and fell on black ice and sustained injuries.

Continue reading "Slip and Fall Injuries on Ice or Snow Covered Sidewalk or Street: Do I Have a Case?" »

Norristown, Pennsylvania -- Philadelphia Accident Lawyer Edith Pearce filed a slip and fall lawsuit in Norristown, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania on behalf of her client, Mr. Parker, a Frito-Lay delivery truck driver. Edith Pearce, recently named a 2008 Super Lawyer by Philadelphia Magazine is a native of Montgomery County and started her career working for a defense insurance company in Norristown, Pennsylvania. Attorney Pearce was familiar with the location of the accident and filed suit claiming negligence when Mr. Parker slipped, tripped, and fell when exiting his truck.

Mr. Parker suffered an injury to his shoulder as a result of a slip-and-fall accident occurring on his employer’s parking lot. Mr. Parker received Pennsylvania workers’ compensation benefits. However, Edith Pearce, a Philadelphia and Montgomery County Accident Lawyer filed the lawsuit in Norristown, Pennsylvania against the company who was hired to remove snow and ice to prevent a slip and fall accident and apply salt to the parking lot and premises. At trial, Mr. Parkers’ doctor explained his diagnosis that the slip-and-fall accident either caused or aggravated asymptomatic tendonosis of the right shoulder. A jury trial was conducted in the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County. The Montgomery County jury returned a verdict in favor of Plaintiff in the amount of $180,000. Defendant appealed the verdict.

Defendant’s main argument on appeal was that the Defendant only had the responsibility for performing snow and ice removal according to the contract for the parking lot to allow trucks to use the parking lot and avoid any truck accidents. Defendant argued on appeal that it did not have any duty to prevent the slip and fall accident to Mr. Parker. However, on appeal, Edith Pearce, who lives in Montgomery County Pennsylvania and was familiar with the area argued that Defendant owed a duty to make the parking lot safe for employees and other people to walk into or from the parking lot to prevent someone from slipping or falling. Attorney Pearce filed for delay damages because of the delay in time caused by the appeal. The Superior Court of Pennsylvania upheld the verdict in the slip and fall accident and ordered that payment be made in excess of $200,000.

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.