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’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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Paul T. Oven

Job: Personal Injury Attorney, at DLP Law

Profile:

Concentration: Personal Injury, Medical Malpractice, Product Liability, and Commercial Litigation

* 2005, 2006 and 2007 Pennsylvania Super Lawyer Rising Star

* Board Certified by the National Board of Trial Advocacy

* Member of the NEPA Trial Lawyers Association

* Member of the American Trial Lawyers Association

* Member of the PA Bar Association

* Member of the Lackawanna County Bar Association

* Lecturer for the PA Bar Institute and the Lackawanna County Bar Association.

Biography: Paul T. Oven has been a Partner in Dougherty, Leventhal & Price, LLP’s Moosic office since
2000 and has been with the firm since 1995. He focuses his practice on complex civil litigation
including medical malpractice, product liability, insurance bad faith and automobile/trucking cases.

He is a board certified Civil Trial Advocate by the National Board of Trial Advocacy since 2003 and has been recognized as a Pennsylvania Super Lawyer Rising Star for 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008.

He was also recently selected and invited to become a Fellow in the Litigation Council of America
which is a trial lawyer honorary society composed of less than one-half of one percent of American
lawyers.

Paul has lectured extensively for the Pennsylvania Bar Institute, Dispute Resolution Institute,
National Business Institute and Lackawanna County Bar Association. He is a member of the NEPA
Trial Lawyers’ Association, American Association of Justice, Pennsylvania Bar Association and
Lackawanna County Bar Association.

The NORTHEAST BUSINESS JOURNAL recently named Paul as one of Northeast
PA’s Top Twenty at Forty for 2008.

Paul was also recently published in the February 2009 edition of TRIAL MAGAZINE, The
Journal of the American Association for Justice for an article entitled Initial Steps In the
Roadway Drop Off Case where he and his firm obtained a $14.5 million dollar settlement for a
catastrophically injured client.

Paul received his Undergraduate Degree from the University of Scranton and graduated with
Honors from the Duquesne University School of Law where he served as Student Bar Association
President and was a member of the Justice Lewis Manderino Honor Society.

Personal Injury Attorneyhttp://www.dlplaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/Paul-Oven.jpgConcentration: Personal Injury, Medical Malpractice, Product Liability, and Commercial Litigation

* 2005, 2006 and 2007 Pennsylvania Super Lawyer Rising Star

* Board Certified by the National Board of Trial Advocacy

* Member of the NEPA Trial Lawyers Association

* Member of the American Trial Lawyers Association

* Member of the PA Bar Association

* Member of the Lackawanna County Bar Association

* Lecturer for the PA Bar Institute and the Lackawanna County Bar Association.

Biography: Paul T. Oven has been a Partner in Dougherty, Leventhal & Price, LLP’s Moosic office since 2000 and has been with the firm since 1995. He focuses his practice on complex civil litigation including medical malpractice, product liability, insurance bad faith and automobile/trucking cases.

He is a board certified Civil Trial Advocate by the National Board of Trial Advocacy since 2003 and has been recognized as a Pennsylvania Super Lawyer Rising Star for 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008.

He was also recently selected and invited to become a Fellow in the Litigation Council of America which is a trial lawyer honorary society composed of less than one-half of one percent of American lawyers.

Paul has lectured extensively for the Pennsylvania Bar Institute, Dispute Resolution Institute, National Business Institute and Lackawanna County Bar Association. He is a member of the NEPA Trial Lawyers’ Association, American Association of Justice, Pennsylvania Bar Association and Lackawanna County Bar Association.

The NORTHEAST BUSINESS JOURNAL recently named Paul as one of Northeast PA’s Top Twenty at Forty for 2008.

Paul was also recently published in the February 2009 edition of TRIAL MAGAZINE, The Journal of the American Association for Justice for an article entitled Initial Steps In the Roadway Drop Off Case where he and his firm obtained a $14.5 million dollar settlement for a catastrophically injured client.

Paul received his Undergraduate Degree from the University of Scranton and graduated with Honors from the Duquesne University School of Law where he served as Student Bar Association President and was a member of the Justice Lewis Manderino Honor Society. // –>