Posts Tagged ‘family’

Paul and his family lived in Harrisburg. Paul worked for the Reliable Car Company and had become one of their best salesmen. Paul’s family had a second home in Wayne County, and he always felt it would be nice to move up to that area on a full-time basis.

As fortune would have it, Paul was contacted by a local Wayne County car dealer and was offered a five-year guaranteed contract to come sell cars in the Poconos. After a lengthy discussion, Paul decided to take the offer and his family moved up on a permanent basis to the area.

At first Paul did very well but because of the down turn in the economy, his sales fell off sharply. Paul was notified by the owner of the company that he was going to be laid off for economic reasons.

Issue: Does Paul have any course of action against his new employer?

Answer: Yes. While Pennsylvania is an Employment-At-Will state, which means that the employment relationship is presumed to be terminable by either party at any time with or without notice and with or without cause, there are exceptions. One is where there is an express contract. In this case, Paul was guaranteed five years of employment at a base salary. Should the employer insist on Paul’s termination, they will have to pay him for the full five years what his base salary would have been had he continued working.

Disclaimer: The above article is for instructive purposes only and each case is fact sensitive. Consultation with an attorney should be obtained instead of reliance upon the legal issues discussed in this column.

A Columbia County jury awarded $1.5 million to the family of a patient whose pulmonary hemorrhage was allegedly misdiagnosed by a Bloomsburg doctor. The law firm of Dougherty, Leventhal & Price filed a medical malpractice suit on behalf of the family of Bruce Whitmire, 43, against the doctor, Donald A. Remaly, alleging he had mistakenly treated Whitmire for pneumonia.

“What killed him was that he was allowed to bleed into his lungs for three weeks,” said personal injury attorney Patrick Dougherty, who along with Attorney Brian Walsh represented the Whitmires. Whitmire, a truck driver, died on April 10, 2000.

A Columbia County jury found Remaly negligent in his care of Whitmire. It awarded $444,000 in damages to the victim’s family, $5,067 to cover the cost of Whitmire’s funeral and $1,050,933 to compensate for his suffering and mental and physical pain. This represents the largest jury verdict in the history of Columbia County.

Daniel Boone Jones lived with his wife, Mary, and their three small children on a farm in Northern Wayne County. Daniel was a very law-abiding man and generally minded his own business.

Daniel’s family lived off a dirt road, and very little traffic went down their road other than the neighbors that lived by them. Everyone pretty much knew everybody else’s vehicles.

It was about 3:00 in the morning when Daniel thought he heard a commotion downstairs. At first, he thought it was just the wind, but then he heard it again. Daniel grabbed a loaded gun he kept behind his dresser to make sure everything was in order. Upon going down the steps, Daniel noticed three figures in his home with one of the figures approaching him apparently holding what appeared to Daniel to be a gun. Daniel, without hesitation, began firing his gun. Daniel was a very good shot, and all three of the intruders fell to the floor.

Mary had already called the state troopers who were on their way. Upon arriving at the scene, the troopers discovered two of the would-be burglars to be in critical condition and the other to be wounded, but not seriously.

Issue: Does Daniel have any criminal and/or civil liability?

Answer: No. Daniel had every reason to believe that both his family and he were in imminent danger of bodily harm. Under those circumstances, Daniel was well within his rights under the law to use whatever force he thought necessary to protect his family. Daniel would have neither civil liability nor criminal liability for his actions. Had Daniel observed the three individuals running out of his house when he first saw them and then opened fire, striking the intruders when they were clearly leaving the house, then Daniel might face criminal prosecution. As a general rule, an individual cannot use deadly force to protect property, but can use deadly force to defend themselves against a clear and present danger of bodily harm to either themselves or their family.

Disclaimer: The above article is for instructive purposes only and each case is fact sensitive. Consultation with an attorney should be obtained instead of reliance upon the legal issues discussed in this column.

Bob, Karen and their two children had just moved into their brand new apartment when Bob received notice that his reserve unit was being called to active duty to eventually go to Afghanistan. Bob had signed a two year lease with this landlord obligating Bob to pay $900 per month in rent. Bob was employed as an accountant for a local accounting firm and was earning over $50,000 per year. With Bob’s deployment, it became obvious that the family was going to have a difficult time paying their rent and meeting all their other expenses.

The landlord gave Bob’s wife several warnings after Bob had been gone for six months, and the rent was now two months overdue. The landlord stated he would have to start an eviction proceeding against Bob’s family.

Question: Will the landlord be successful?

Answer: The landlord will not be successful. Under the Soldiers and Sailors Civil Relief Act, men and women serving in the military are afforded protection from situations like this. That protection includes reduced interest on credit card debt, reduce interests on mortgage payments, protection from eviction if the rent is $1,200 or less, and delay of all civil court actions including bankruptcy actions and foreclosures.

The only way the landlord would be able to evict Bob’s family is to get a court order authorizing the eviction. If, in fact, the landlord takes the matter to court, the court is allowed to grant a stay of up to three months or enter any other “order as may be just”. If the military service materially effects Bob’s family’s ability to pay the rent, the Judge is afforded wide latitude to protect Bob’s family while Bob is serving his country.

Bob’s family is also provided significant protection with regards to the limits of interest that may be collected on any of his debts. He cannot be charged more than 6% interest during the period Bob is in the military service. This provision applies to all debts incurred prior to the commencement of active duty and includes such things as interest on credit card debt, mortgages, car loans and other debts. This applies to all pre-service debts only, and the interest reduction doesn’t automatically occur. Bob would have to request the same by notifying the lenders of his intent to utilize his 6% cap in writing along with providing the lenders proof of his mobilization/activation to active duty and provide them evidence of the difference in his military as opposed to his civilian pay.

Disclaimer: The above article is for instructive purposes only and each case is fact sensitive. Consultation with an attorney should be obtained instead of reliance upon the legal issues discussed in this column.

The Holiday Season is a joyous time to celebrate with family and to reconnect with old friends.  Many times, as hosts, we greet our friends and family with rich foods, beer and wine.  Make sure that you remain conscious and observant at your holiday festivities regarding the amount of alcohol that your guests are consuming.  Here are a few tips to make you a better host:

1. Always serve food at your celebrations instead of just alcohol;
2. Have an adult pour your guests= drinks so that someone is observing the appearance and actions of your friends
3. Use smaller glasses to serve alcoholic drinks;
4. Remind your guests that Pennsylvania=s level of intoxication is now .08.
5. Stop serving alcohol an hour or two prior to the ending of the celebration.

By following the above recommendations you may very well avert your family and friends from confronting a DUI investigation or even worse, an accident.

When it comes to minors drinking at your holiday celebrations, you must be even more cognizant of their actions and the law.  In Congini v. Portersville Valve Co., 504 Pa. 157, 470 A.2d 515, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that a Social Host could be liable for the injuries sustained by others on account of a minor consuming alcohol at a social event.  The court reconfirmed the public policy that minors are incompetent to handle alcohol.  There is an affirmative duty upon adults not to serve minors alcohol at social functions.

So, enjoy this blessed holiday season but know the law as it pertains to you, your guests and alcohol.

Respectfully Submitted,

Brian G. Price, Esquire