Posts Tagged ‘Paul’

Route that trucks will take, what to do in an emergency among issues considered.

 EILEEN GODIN Times Leader Correspondent

 LAKE TWP. — Gas drilling concerns dominated the regular monthly Wednesday night meeting. Residents sought answers from supervisors to protect their rural way of life from possible negative effects from natural gas drilling.

With Encana Oil and Gas U.S.A. to begin construction of a natural gas well off Zosh Road the last week of June, and drilling to begin in August, questions of which route the gas company trucks will be using, what will be stored on-site and what will happen in case of an emergency were on the minds of township residents as well as people from neighboring municipalities.

The property is currently owned by Supervisor Amy Salansky and her husband, Paul. Salansky said the farm was previously owned by an elderly neighbor. He willed the gas and mineral rights to his nephew, who will receive any royalties associated with the drilling.

Salansky purchased the farm from the estate. She said she will not receive any money from the gas company except for property damages.

“I’ll be losing six acres,” she said.

Joseph Rutchauskas, of Lehman Township, lives within the mile radius of the gas well. He questioned supervisors on what could be done to prevent air and water pollution and prevent emergencies.

Supervisors had before them an Emergency Management Manual comprised from information Township Emergency Management Coordinator Barney Dobinick had compiled to handle various situations, from a well fire to injuries on the well site. Dobinick has spent three months working on the manual.

Chairman Lonnie Piatt said the manual, which will be finished by the end of next week, will be reviewed by the supervisors and voted on next month. At that time it will be available for residents to review at the municipal building or pay for a copy.

Piatt said a truck route has been determined to help with safety. The one way-in and one way-out route was discussed between Encana Oil and Gas U.S.A., Lehman Township and Lake Township. Salansky said the trucks will come east on Route 118, turn left on Lehman Outlet Road, left on Hoover Road, right on Sholtis Road, and left on Bosh Road.

Exiting the site, trucks will travel Ide Road, right on Meeker Road, left on Meeker Outlet Road, left on Slocum Road and right on Route 118.

Piatt said fresh and return water will be stored in tanks on-site. The return water would be taken away to Williamsport to a water treatment facility. Fresh water will be trucked in.

To view this article, click here.

Copyright: The Times Leader

By Steve Mocarsky smocarsky@timesleader.com
Staff Writer

 LEHMAN TWP. – Back Mountain residents and local legislators knew parcels of land leased to natural gas companies for exploration were close to two major water sources – the Huntsville and Ceasetown reservoirs, but some had no idea just how close.

There is at least one parcel of leased land on the shoreline of the Huntsville Reservoir, and another parcel just a few hundred feet from the shoreline, The Times Leader learned on Monday.

The discovery was made by title searcher Eric Gustitus, of Exeter, and verified by the newspaper through a Luzerne County property records check.

“I was doing a title search on property next to Penn State Lehman and I came across a gas lease on land close to the reservoir. I was shocked,” Gustitus said, explaining that he heard local activists expressing concerns about potential gas well sites being within a mile or two of water sources.

Gustitus located a 3.72-acre property on the shoreline of the reservoir owned by Paul and Janet Siegel, and an adjacent 10.88-acre property to the west owned by their son, Christopher Siegel, and his wife, Maureen.

“Oh my God, am I concerned,” said state Rep. Phyllis Mundy, D-Kingston, when told of the proximity of the leased land to the reservoir.

“I’m very concerned about the potential for drilling so close to the reservoir. If you’ve been following the news about Clearfield County and how frack water spewed from the well for 16 hours, you can see why potential for contamination of our water supply is of grave concern to me. And I know my constituents are concerned,” Mundy said.

A blowout at a natural-gas well in Penfield shot explosive gas and polluted water as high as 75 feet into the air last week before crews were able to tame it more than half a day later.

EnCana Oil & Gas plans to drill two exploratory wells this summer – one next month in Fairmount Township and another in Lake Township. After drilling an initial vertical well on a site, the company will drill horizontally, using a process called hydraulic fracturing (fracking) to release natural gas from the thick layer of shale about a mile beneath the earth’s surface.

Mundy is a co-sponsor of legislation that would create a 2,500-foot buffer around water sources such as the reservoirs to protect them from possible contamination from gas drilling-related activities.

The Huntsville and Ceasetown reservoirs serve as a water supply for Pennsylvania American Water Co., which serves many of Mundy’s constituents.

Mundy said Pennsylvania American President Kathy Pape had expressed concerns to her about water contamination.

Pape said on Monday she is working with Mundy to prepare testimony for the state Public Utility Commission on Marcellus Shale drilling.

Harveys Lake resident Michelle Boice, a member of the Gas Drilling Awareness Coalition and a commentator on environmental issues related to gas drilling at local meetings, said allowing any kind of gas drilling operations so close to the reservoir is “beyond any kind of reasoning., and it goes to show there are no rules or protections in place for the people.”

Dr. Tom Jiunta, a founding member of the coalition, said it’s “insane how close they are with these leases” to water sources.

Paul Siegel said he’s just as concerned as his neighbors about the potential for reservoir contamination, and that’s why there’s a protective clause in his lease with EnCana. “We have the right not to let them on our land, and we wouldn’t do that because we want to live here,” he said.

Siegel said he agreed to lease the land because he got the impression that everyone around him was signing gas leases.

“When everyone around you is signing, it gets kind of like a mad rush. So, if they’re going to be drilling next to us, and they’re going to be down there anyway, we said we don’t mind if they go under us,” Siegel said.

Christopher and Maureen Siegel could not be reached for comment. Neither could EnCana spokeswoman Wendy Wiedenbeck.

To view this article, click here.

Copyright: The Times Leader

Paul and Amy had planned their wedding for a long time and were looking forward to having an extravagant ceremony and reception. Amy was English and most of her family, which was very large, was coming over for the wedding. The couple had ordered a large amount of exotic flowers that were to be delivered by way of Holland. The couple also paid a prepaid amount to the caterer based upon the amount of guests.

As fortune or misfortune would have it, because of the volcanic eruption in Iceland, delivery of the special flowers which came from Holland was impossible in time for the wedding. Even worse, though, was the fact that Amy’s entire family from England and extended family were not able to get a flight over to attend the wedding.

Amy and Paul felt that because of the volcanic eruption making it impossible for many of the guests to arrive, they should not be held responsible for the prepayment to the caterer for those guests, which numbered more than 70. Likewise, Paul and Amy felt that they should not have to pay for even the substitute flowers provided to them by the florist, let alone the value of the imported flowers that never made it from Holland.

Issue: Do Paul and Amy have any basis in their allegations?

Answer: Yes and no. As far as the caterer is concerned, Paul and Amy are out of luck. The fact that many of the guests were not able to make it was in no way the responsibility or fault of the caterer. With regards to the flowers, the most that Paul and Amy will be responsible for are the far less expensive substitute flowers that were domestically brought in at the last minute. The florist cannot charge them for flowers that were never delivered because of the volcanic eruption.

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.

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.

Paul had worked for a Texas-based natural gas drilling company out of Texas for a number of years. The company started to develop drilling sites in Northeastern Pennsylvania, and Paul was put up at a hotel close to the drilling site. Paul had never had an accident in the ten previous years he had worked, despite doing very physical types of activities while working with the various drills on the sites.

Paul’s good fortune ran out though, and he jammed his hand on one of the drill bits, seriously injuring the hand. Paul’s employer was insistent that since Paul was employed out of Texas and the employer was based out of Texas, that he would have to file his comp claim under Texas law.

Issue: Is Paul’s employer correct?

Answer: No. In Pennsylvania, regardless of where an employer is principally located and/or where a contract for hire was entered into, if an injury occurs in Pennsylvania, then Pennsylvania has jurisdiction and Paul will be entitled to benefits under Pennsylvania law. Pennsylvania’s workers’ compensation benefits are, for the most part, far more generous, and the injured worker is provided far more protection than in other states, especially states in the South and Midwest.

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.

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.

Paul was approaching the light at Hamlin corners having finished work in Scranton. At the same time, Karen was approaching the same intersection coming back from Stroudsburg. Both parties entered the intersection with Paul running into the side of Karen’s vehicle. When the State Police arrived to investigate, both drivers were insistent that they had the green light.

Eventually, a lawsuit ensued with both drivers suing the other alleging that each one had the right-of-way. Karen insisted that when she got a glimpse of Paul going into the intersection, he appeared to be on his cell phone. Paul denied the same stating that he was giving full attention to the road and, in fact, had a green light.

Once the litigation started, Karen’s attorney did subpoena the cell phone records from Paul’s provider. They actually showed that Paul would have been on the phone at the very time that the accident happened. In fact, he apparently was texting somebody. Paul’s attorney attempted to keep this evidence out.

Issue: Will Paul’s attorney be successful in keeping this evidence out?

Answer: No. The evidence will be admissible for two reasons. Paul’s credibility will be cast in doubt since he stated he was not on the phone or operating his phone at the time of the accident when the records showed just the opposite. Additionally, the jury will be able to infer that Paul in fact was not watching the road at the time of the accident because he was texting on his blackberry and, therefore, he was distracted from the conditions that presented themselves. In all likelihood, Karen will win her lawsuit when all the facts come to light.

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.

Paul was having both his Social Security retirement benefits and his veteran’s benefits deposited directly into his checking account and had been for several years. Back in 2007, Paul was in the hospital for an extended stay due to a heart condition. While most of Paul’s medical bills were covered, there was a gap leaving almost $18,000 in unpaid medical bills. Paul attempted to negotiate with the hospital that had taken care of him, but the hospital was not satisfied with the payments Paul was making and, through legal process, by getting a Court Order to freeze and then withdraw amounts from the account where Paul had his direct deposits made.

Issue: Does Paul have any recourse?

Answer: As a general rule, federal law protects Social Security and veteran’s benefits from most creditors. There are a few exceptions, such as alimony, child support, unpaid federal taxes, and debts to other federal agencies. Nevertheless, since Paul had direct deposit into a general account where he had other savings, and then they were co-mingled with the Social Security and veteran’s benefits, this allowed his creditor to collect from that account.

Easy Eddie was taking a leisurely drive heading east on Route 6 through Hawley. The town was busy, and there were few parking spaces.

Precocious Paul, who was five years old, had just come out of the bakery with his mom and broke away from her grasp running right between two cars directly into the path of Easy Eddie.

Easy Eddie, upon seeing Paul run between the two cars, immediately steered to the left and braked as hard as he could. Fortunately, Eddie was able to avoid Precocious Paul but, unfortunately, Bad Luck Lucy, driving in a westerly direction, could not avoid Easy Eddie who had gone into her lane.

Even though both cars were going slow, there was a violent crash and both Easy Eddie and Bad Luck Lucy sustained injuries.

Bad Luck Lucy decided she was going to bring a lawsuit against Easy Eddie and Precocious Paul’s mother for not controlling Paul from running into the road.

Question: Does Bad Luck Lucy have a case?

Answer: As against Easy Eddie, Bad Luck Lucy, in all probability will have no claim. There is a doctrine in Pennsylvania called the Sudden Emergency Doctrine. This doctrine stands for the principle that if a driver is presented with a sudden emergency which was not caused in any way by that driver, then the driver is not held to as high a reasonableness of care as he would ordinarily and at times a driver is even excused from following the normal traffic laws. In this case Eddie had a young child run directly in front of his car between two parked vehicles. His options were either to hit the child or attempt to avoid the child by going into the opposing lane of traffic. In actuality, Eddie probably made the most reasonable decision under the circumstances and cannot be found liable to Bad Luck Lucy.

Lucy’s case against Precocious Paul’s mother will also be difficult. While ultimately it may be up to a jury to decide if Paul’s mother was negligent, in all likelihood, very few jurors will consider Paul’s mother’s conduct to be so. Paul’s sudden and unexpected ESCAPE FROM HIS MOTHER would be something for which his mother could not be faulted.

There are accidents that do happen in which no one is legally at fault, and a knowledgeable lawyer would be able to explain this to the victims of the same and avoid an unnecessary lawsuit.

A friend of mine sent me an email the other day which set forth information and “facts” involving six “outrageous” lawsuits and trumpeted the need for tort reform. The email stated, in part, as follows:

This is what’s wrong with the world:
1.January, 2000: Kathleen Robertson of Austin, Texas, was awarded $780,000 by a jury after breaking her ankle tripping over a toddler who was running amuck inside a furniture store. The owners of the store were understandably surprised at the verdict, considering the misbehaving tyke was Ms. Robertson’s son.
2. June, 1998: Carl Truman, 19, of Los Angeles won $74,000 and medical expenses when his neighbor ran his hand over with a Honda Accord. Mr. Truman apparently didn’t notice someone was at the wheel of the car whose hubcap he was trying to steal.
3. October, 1998: Terrence Dickson of Bristol, Penn., was exiting a house he finished robbing by way of the garage. He was not able to get the garage door to go up because the automatic door opener was malfunctioning. He couldn’t re-enter the house because the door connecting the house and garage locked when he pulled it shut. The family was on vacation, so Mr. Dickson found himself locked in the garage for eight days. He subsisted on a case of Pepsi he found, and a large bag of dry dog food. Dickson sued the homeowner’s insurance claiming the situation caused him undue mental anguish. The jury agreed to the tune of half a million dollars and change.
4. October, 1999: Jerry Williams of Little Rock, Arkansas, was awarded $14,500 and medical expenses after being bitten on the buttocks by his next door neighbor’s beagle. The beagle was on a chain in its owner’s fenced-in yard, as was Mr. Williams. The award was less than sought after because the jury felt the dog may have been provoked by Mr. Williams who, at the time, was shooting it repeatedly with a pellet gun.
5. May, 2000: A Philadelphia restaurant was ordered to pay Amber Carson of Lancaster, Pennsylvania $113,500 after she slipped on a spilled soft drink and broke her coccyx. The beverage was on the floor because Ms. Carson threw it at her boyfriend 30 seconds earlier during an argument.
6. December, 1997: Kara Walton of Claymont, Delaware, successfully sued the owner of a nightclub in a neighboring city when she fell from the bathroom window to the floor and knocked out her two front teeth. This occurred while Ms. Walton was trying to sneak through the window in the ladies room to avoid paying the $3.50 cover charge. She was awarded $12,000 and dental expenses.
7. December, 2001: In November, 2000, Mr. Grazinski purchased a brand new 32 foot Winnebago motor home. On his first trip home, having joined the freeway, he set the cruise control at 70 mph and calmly left the drivers seat to go into the back and make himself a cup of coffee. Not surprisingly, the Winnie left the freeway, crashed and overturned. Mr. Grazinski sued Winnebago for not advising him in the handbook that he could not actually do this. He was awarded $1,750,000 plus a new Winnebago.

Now I had received several emails like this over the years and the facts and circumstances seemed too far-fetched to merit a response. The message of these emails alludes to the need for tort reform in light of the odious conduct of the plaintiffs and the outrageous jury awards. As a lawyer, you develop a tough skin as the public views the profession as greedy and opportunistic. But this time I decided to search the internet and see if I could find any information on these seven lawsuits referenced in the email. The internet has spurred the mass proliferation of emails which dispense information to thousands of people as emails are forwarded with the click of a button. I thought that the facts of these tort-reform championing emails smacked of urban legend -a type of a modern folklore consisting of stories thought to be factual by those circulating them. Urban legends are not necessarily untrue, but they are often distorted, exaggerated, or sensationalized over time. Often, upon receiving an email with a seemingly improbable premise (alligators living in the Manhattan sewers, “Paul” from the “Wonder Years” is now Marilyn Manson, etc.), I access www.snopes.com, an internet website which debunks or confirms the accuracy of these mass-circulated emails.
Lo and behold, snopes.com has debunked ALL SEVEN OF THE “CASES” IN THE EMAIL AS TOTALLY FALSE!!!! A search of the names of the parties to the lawsuits and the courts involved failed to reflect any such court filings or jury awards.
We live in a world where lawyers are viewed with scorn and discontent. In this climate, such emails meet with a receptive public perception as the current feeling is against large jury awards for bogus claims. But the call for tort reform as championed by big business and the insurance lobby potentially denies those in need of a legal remedy their day in court and declines them their right to be heard. “Caps” on jury awards is also unfair to those who are seriously injured as they may deserve a large award to fairly compensate them for their damages caused by the conduct of another. Big business stands to profit immensely from tort reform and capping jury awards. Capping an award will not deter a large corporation who may be able to afford to pay the damages.
So, the next time you receive a “chain” email that talks about an outrageous jury award, do yourself a favor and research some of the the facts. Remember, don’t believe everything you read..and only half of what you see.