Posts Tagged ‘Main Street’

Helen was taking a leisurely stroll on a sunny Saturday afternoon on Main Street in Hawley. Helen was on her way to the candy store when, out of the corner of her eye, she noticed a rather large dog without a collar crossing the street heading towards her.

Helen continued to walk towards the store as the dog got closer and closer. Helen did not see any type of aggressive behavior with the dog and reached down to pet it. Unfortunately, as soon as Helen stuck her hand out, the dog bit her, causing a serious injury to her hand. When Helen screamed, the dog let go and ran away. Because of various complications, Helen’s medical bills would run over $20,000.

Issue: Does Helen have any right to bring a lawsuit against the municipality?

Answer: No. A stray dog on a town sidewalk would not be considered within the care, custody or control of the municipality. The municipality would enjoy sovereign immunity or, in other words, could not be sued in such a circumstance. Examples of potential liability would be for police dogs and/or horses that were being used by policemen.

In cases involving animals, a court will determine whether the animal at issue was a wild or a domestic animal. If the animal is wild, there is no liability. If the animal is considered a domestic animal, then the court will make a determination whether or not that animal is in the control of the local governmental agency. If it is not, then there can be no lawsuit against the municipality.

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.

While the change in the traffic pattern in downtown Honesdale has apparently facilitated the flow of traffic, it has created several very dangerous conditions.

The first dangerous condition is presented when drivers coming off the side streets between Church and Main Street attempt to make a left-hand turn onto Main Street. On many occasions, their sight distance is greatly compromised by either a truck or SUV parked in the last legal parking spot directly to their right. This forces the driver wishing to make a turn to partially expose the front end of their vehicle onto the driven portion of Main Street in order to see around the parked vehicle. This condition will only get worse as the summer traffic gets heavier.

A suggested remedy would be to only allow compact vehicles to park in the last parking spot at the end of each block or, in the alternative, eliminate one more parking spot at each intersection.

A second dangerous condition is that caused by the one-way traffic for pedestrians wishing to cross the street. Many times a pedestrian that starts to cross the street will not come into the view of the driver in the farthest lane from the side of the road where the pedestrian started until that pedestrian is well into the street. Unless the driver in the far lane notices the vehicle next to him slowing down or stopping, he may have no indication that there is a person about to enter his lane. As bad as this situation exists on Main Street, which is well lit, it is even worse on Church Street because of the lack of lighting.

Other than a traffic signal at every intersection, this is going to be a difficult problem to resolve.

Paul had sustained a work-related back injury and, with the help of some excellent therapy, was scheduled to return to work in just three days. Paul was on his way to his last physical therapy session when he was stopped at a stoplight on Main Street in Honesdale. Paul was suddenly rear ended by a large out-of-state SUV.

Despite having his seatbelt on, Paul was violently thrown forward at the same time that the airbag opened. Paul immediately felt extreme pain once again in his low back and, as a result of the rear-end collision, his return to work would ultimately be delayed almost four months while he once again rehabilitated.

Issue: Will Paul be entitled to Workers’ Compensation benefits for the additional four months?

Answer: Yes. Because of the fact that Paul was injured once again while on his way to treatment, it would be considered all part of the original work-related injury. Thus, Paul’s additional four months of medical bills and lost time would all be compensable. If Paul suffered other injuries besides the original injury to his low back, that would also be considered compensable under the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act.

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.

Jennifer was a passenger in a car being driven by her friend, Carol. While going down Main Street in Hawley, a car came out of one of the side roads being driven by Madison. Madison ran a stop sign and drove her vehicle directly in front of Carol’s vehicle, resulting in an accident. Jennifer was injured in the accident and suffered a broken shoulder as well as a bad neck sprain.

When Jennifer brought suit against Madison, Madison’s lawyer joined Carol as an additional defendant in the lawsuit, stating Carol was also partially to blame because Carol did not keep an adequate lookout at the time of the accident.

The case went to trial, and Jennifer was awarded $150,000. Madison was found to be 95% negligent and Carol only 5%. Unfortunately, Madison only had $15,000 in coverage, while Carol had $100,000 in coverage.

Issue: How much can Jennifer collect from Carol’s insurance company?

Answer: While it seems unfair, Jennifer is entitled to collect the entire $100,000 from Carol’s policy. She will have collected $115,000 out of the total verdict of $150,000. Carol’s insurance company will have a right to try to recoup some of the monies directly from Madison, but the likelihood of that happening is very unlikely.

This is referred to as joint and several liability that allows these types of outcomes. It is still the law in Pennsylvania and, as mentioned before, has resulted in many unfair outcomes where people that are found only slightly negligent bear the greater the cost of covering judgments.

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.

Slim Jenkins was crossing Main Street in downtown Honesdale in front of the post office on a specially designated area marked as a pedestrian crossing. Main Street was particularly busy because the summer camps were starting to close, and many parents were picking up their campers and returning home. Big Al and his wife, Debbie, from Manhattan had just picked up their son and were heading south on Main Street. Al was looking for a place to stop to get a bite to eat and did not notice Slim crossing the street. It was too late when Al noticed Slim. Al ended up hitting Slim dead on, throwing Slim about ten feet in the air.

Poor Slim suffered fractures of his left hip and arm as well as other injuries. If it wasn’t for the expert care that Slim received from the orthopedic surgeon at Wayne Memorial, Slim’s injuries may have been permanent.

Issue: Where could Slim bring a lawsuit to recover from his pain and suffering?

Answer: Because of the fact that Big Al was from New York State, Slim would be able to bring a lawsuit in the Middle District of Pennsylvania in Federal Court. This is because there is what is called diversity of citizenship as Big Al was from New York and Slim was a resident of Pennsylvania, and the amount in controversy is in excess of $75,000.00 as a result of the serious nature of Slim’s injuries. Slim could also bring a lawsuit in County Court in Honesdale or even in the court which would have jurisdiction where Big Al lives. In this case, Slim’s attorneys will certainly file suit in the Middle District of Pennsylvania, and the trial will take place in Federal Court in Scranton.

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.

Bad Bart and his friend Sticky Fingers Fred were walking down Main Street Hawley when they observed a pizza delivery truck unattended with the motor running. Bart and Fred figured they would have a little fun and jumped into the car with Sticky Fingers Fred driving. Sticky Fingers Fred had previously had his driver’s license revoked because of numerous convictions of reckless driving. Consistent with previous conduct, Fred commenced to drive the stolen vehicle up onto the sidewalk crashing into a utility pole.

Both men were convicted of multiple counts and sent to the local prison. Sticky Fingers Fred considered himself a jailhouse lawyer and convinced Bad Bart to sue for the injuries Bart sustained at the time of the collision. Bart decided to sue the delivery driver based upon the fact that the driver left the vehicle unattended with the engine running as well as the delivery driver’s employer.

Question: Does Bart have any case?

Answer: There exists a “No Felony Conviction Recovery” rule. This rule bars a felon as a matter of public policy from benefiting from his own criminal acts. It exists to discourage courts from assisting convicted felons from collecting damages that would not have occurred absent the criminal conviction. Bad Bart was not only injured because of Sticky Fingers Fred but also got some bad advice as well.

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.