Delaware County Personal Injury Attorney On Delaware County, PA Personal Injury Slip and Falls

Image : http://www.flickr.com

Automobile accidents and fall down cases are the most common types of lawsuit for personal injuries. The legal principles involved with these two types of cases differ greatly. I examine here the hurdles that must be overcome in order to receive fair compensation for injuries suffered as the result of a fall.

Generally, the most difficult problem involves the question of notice. The injured victim must prove that the defendant either created the hazard which caused the injury, or that the defendant knew or should have known of the hazard long enough before the accident to have removed or repaired it.

For example, when a pedestrian trips on a crack in a sidewalk, the P. I. attorney hopes to find someone who lives in the area of the accident who knows that the crack existed for a long time. Or photos may show that the crack was not of recent origin. It is then easy to show that the property owner should have known of it and should have had the crack repaired. The city where the accident happened may also have liability in sidewalk cases for failure to enforce the municipal requirements that sidewalks be kept in good repair. This is particularly important when the property owner carries no insurance on the property. In this situation, the government may be the only defendant against whom a money judgment can be collected. The city becomes the "deep pocket" or "target" defendant.

The next issue that almost always comes up in these cases is the victim's own failure to be careful. This is called "comparative negligence." (See Chapter 9 of the complete book for a discussion of comparative negligence.) Defendants argue that the claimant should have seen the hazard and avoided it. While this argument often reduces the total amount of compensation received, it usually does not defeat the claim outright. There may be valid reasons why the hazard was not seen. For example, when a customer in a grocery store slips on grapes, the customer's attention may have been drawn by a catchy advertisement or display put up by the store. This is a reasonable explanation which, if believed, should enable you to receive full compensation.

A thorough and prompt investigation can make all the difference in the outcome of fall down cases. Witness statements must be obtained and photographs of the hazard must be taken. Even short delays can hurt the case since memories fade rapidly and hazards get repaired quickly when injuries occur.

Thanks To : game Ferret Digital Frame Auto insurance southern remortgage lenders treatment of mesothelioma

How a DUI Conviction Affects Your Car Insurance

Image : http://www.flickr.com

If there is anything that could drive your car insurance cost sky-high it's a drunk-driving (DUI) conviction.

According to the insurance Information Institute, there is an alcohol-related traffic fatality in the United States every 29 minutes. Aside from the risk of killing yourself and others, drunk driving carries with it serious penalties from your car insurance company.

Car insurance companies may check your motor vehicle record only once every three years or when you're applying for a new policy. It's possible that accidents, tickets and DUIs may never make their way to your official motor vehicle record. However, if your insurer does discover your DUI and classifies you as a "high-risk driver," shopping around at renewal time is the best strategy, as car insurance rates will vary greatly among insurers. On the other hand, a rate hike may be the least of your problems; your policy could be cancelled or nonrenewed, especially if you are currently in a preferred car insurance rate class. Then you'll be forced to look for new car insurance with the double-whammy of a DUI and a cancellation on your record.

Laws regarding DUIs and car insurance coverage vary by state. Most states require DUI offenders to get a form called an SR-22 from their auto insurers, so you can't hide. This form proves to the DMV that you carry liability insurance and removes your license suspension. An SR-22 also requires your insurance company to notify the DMV if it cancels your auto insurance for any reason. You'll likely have to file proof of insurance for three - sometimes five - years with your state's DMV.

SR-22 laws

Delaware, Kentucky, Minnesota, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Pennsylvania don't require SR-22s, but if you have an SR-22 and then move to one of these states, you must continue to meet the requirements of the SR-22 state where the offense was committed. New York and North Carolina don't require SR-22 filings at all. In some states there is a fee for SR-22s. (Source: Progressive)

Some car insurance companies don't even offer SR-22 policies, so you may be nonrenewed or cancelled because your company can no longer provide what you need.

Insurers can miss DUI convictions

It's possible that your insurance company will never find out about your DUI conviction if you don't have to get an SR-22. A June 2002 study by the Insurance Research Council revealed that as many as one-quarter of driving convictions never end up on motor vehicle records due to lack of shared information between courts and motor vehicle departments, or because a conviction has been erased through alternative means, such as driving school. If you get your charge reduced in a plea bargain, or have a limited license suspension, such as 30 days, it's also very unlikely your insurer will find out about your conviction.

If your insurance company misses the conviction at the time it happens, it may still have a few years to raise car insurance rates if the DUI is discovered later.

Your ultimate destiny rests with your car insurance company.

For example, one insurance company's action depends on which subsidiary you're with. The insurer reviews rate-increase decisions on a case-by-case basis. If you have a preferred policy with your insurance company and receive a DUI, they may move you into another policy, which could be its standard-policy for riskier drivers and higher car insurance rates.

If you're with Progressive, you will not face nonrenewal or cancellation because of a DUI, but you may face a rate increase. Progressive also reviews car insurance rates on a case-by-case basis, with multiple factors such as age, gender, driving history and your vehicle model going into your rate.

It doesn't end there. Your DUI conviction will follow you if you apply for life insurance and could affect your premiums there, too.

Tags : Insurance Low cost auto insurance sub prime remortgage

Delaware County Personal Injury Attorney On Delaware County, PA Personal Injury Slip and Falls

Image : http://www.flickr.com

Automobile accidents and fall down cases are the most common types of lawsuit for personal injuries. The legal principles involved with these two types of cases differ greatly. I examine here the hurdles that must be overcome in order to receive fair compensation for injuries suffered as the result of a fall.

Generally, the most difficult problem involves the question of notice. The injured victim must prove that the defendant either created the hazard which caused the injury, or that the defendant knew or should have known of the hazard long enough before the accident to have removed or repaired it.

For example, when a pedestrian trips on a crack in a sidewalk, the P. I. attorney hopes to find someone who lives in the area of the accident who knows that the crack existed for a long time. Or photos may show that the crack was not of recent origin. It is then easy to show that the property owner should have known of it and should have had the crack repaired. The city where the accident happened may also have liability in sidewalk cases for failure to enforce the municipal requirements that sidewalks be kept in good repair. This is particularly important when the property owner carries no insurance on the property. In this situation, the government may be the only defendant against whom a money judgment can be collected. The city becomes the "deep pocket" or "target" defendant.

The next issue that almost always comes up in these cases is the victim's own failure to be careful. This is called "comparative negligence." (See Chapter 9 of the complete book for a discussion of comparative negligence.) Defendants argue that the claimant should have seen the hazard and avoided it. While this argument often reduces the total amount of compensation received, it usually does not defeat the claim outright. There may be valid reasons why the hazard was not seen. For example, when a customer in a grocery store slips on grapes, the customer's attention may have been drawn by a catchy advertisement or display put up by the store. This is a reasonable explanation which, if believed, should enable you to receive full compensation.

A thorough and prompt investigation can make all the difference in the outcome of fall down cases. Witness statements must be obtained and photographs of the hazard must be taken. Even short delays can hurt the case since memories fade rapidly and hazards get repaired quickly when injuries occur.

Friends Link : Digital Frame game Insurance, Auto Insurance Critical illness cover austin dwi new Low rate auto insurance

Delaware County, PA Personal Injury Attorney On Delaware County Personal Injury Assumption of Risk

Image : http://www.flickr.com

Defendants may contend that plaintiff assumed the risk of an accident. The burden of showing voluntary assumption of risk and contributory negligence is on the defendants. Whitley v. Philadelphia Transportation Company, 234 A. 2d 922, 925 (Pa. Super. 1967).

The doctrine of assumption of risk "has been very problematic and has fallen from the favor of some of the judiciary and legal commentators. In fact, the doctrine as a separate affirmative defense has only narrowly survived abolishment by our Supreme Court." Bullman v. Giuntoli, PICS No. 00-1904.

The assumption of risk defense is made out only by showing that a person "with appreciation and knowledge of an obvious danger, purposely elects to abandon a position of relative safety and chooses to reposition himself in a place of obvious danger and by reason of that repositioning is injured." McIntyre v. Cusick, 372 A. 2d 864, 866 (Pa. Super. 1977)."

The defense of assumption of the risk will not prevent recovery unless the evidence conclusively establishes that the plaintiff was subjectively aware of the risk and voluntarily assumed it. Barrett v. Fredavid Builders, Inc., 685 A.2d 129 (Pa. Super. 1996). Voluntariness is established only when the circumstances manifest a willingness to accept the risk. Staub v. Toy Factory, Inc., 749 A.2d 522 (Pa. Super. 2000). Mere contributory negligence does not establish assumption of the risk. Id.

Rather, a plaintiff has assumed the risk where he has gone so far as to abandon his right to complain and has absolved the defendant from taking any responsibility for the plaintiff's injuries. Id. In order to prevail on assumption of risk, the defendant must establish both the "awareness of the risk" prong and the "voluntariness" prong. Id.

The defense is not available unless it is beyond question, such that no two reasonable minds could differ, that the plaintiff voluntarily and knowingly proceeded in the face of an obvious and dangerous condition. Hardy v. Southland Corp., 645 A. 2d 839 (Pa. Super. 1994), citing, Howell v. Clyde, 620 A. 2d 1107 (Pa. 1993). Assumption of the risk cannot be used as a defense unless it is shown that plaintiff "must have appreciated the danger itself and the nature, character and extent which made it unreasonable." Crance v. Sohanic, 496 A. 2d 1230, 1232 (Pa. Super. 1985).

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Hughes v. Seven Springs Farm, Inc., 762 A.2d 399 (Pa. 2000), discussed the status of the doctrine of assumption of
risk in light of the passage of the comparative negligence statute and
stated that as a general rule, the doctrine of assumption of the risk, with its
attendant "complexities" and "difficulties," has been supplanted by the
Pennsylvania General Assembly's adoption of a system of recovery based on
comparative fault in the Comparative Negligence Act. 42 Pa.C.S.A. §7102(a)-(b). Where plaintiff tried to minimize her risk of falling, but fell nevertheless, she did not voluntarily assume the risk of falling. Barrett v. Fredavid Builders, Inc., 685 A.2d 129 (Pa. Super. 1996).

Finally, in Giosa v. School District of Philadelphia, 630 A.2d 511 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1993), defendant argued that the plaintiff assumed the risk of slipping on an icy sidewalk, "because Giosa fully understood the risk involved in walking on the sidewalk, and yet voluntarily chose to encounter it." Id. The Court held that since defendant owed plaintiff, a member of the general public, a duty to keep the public sidewalks clear from any dangerous conditions, the doctrine of assumption of risk did not apply. Id. Similarly, defendants owed plaintiff, Fran Kellenbenz, as a member of the general public, a duty to keep their sidewalk clear from any dangerous conditions. Similarly, the doctrine of assumption of risk does not apply and the Court should not charge the jury thereon.

See Also : Hipmore Blog Austin dwi california student loan consolidation rate