When Do You Need a Work Injury Attorney?

We have laws on workers compensation to protect the employees who might get injured or have an accident while at work. This is the reason why we have work injury attorney to assist us and help us understand the various aspects and proceedings in filing the lawsuit against the employer or the company we are working for. We work for them but the do not have the rights to employ us in the high risk fields just to get impaired and injured. We have to remember that along with the work that we do in the office, accidents typically occur - especially if somebody is negligent and it can lead to serious medical condition.

Since employers are entitled to have insurance, the employees have rights to file their claims and demand for their compensation. It is necessary that all the injured employers will receive the compensation entitled to them and the injury attorney is their only way to get what is due to them. Your attorney will make things work for you especially if the injuries you incurred leads to permanency.

Most likely in cases like this, you need the help of your attorney. If your employer is willing to help you, the insurance company of the employer will settle your claims. However, insurers are not very open when it comes to paying of claims. As much as possible, they will limit your compensation according to their standards. They also have lawyers to help them reduce your compensation. If this is the case, better get your own personal work injury attorney to the just compensation for the injuries your had.

When you choose your attorney, make sure that he or she is qualified to handle your case. He/She must have enough experience handling the same case as yours. Your attorney must be well versed when it comes to the laws and the ways and means on how to strengthen your case. You also have to be cautious about the statute of limitations. Different places and states have different timeframe. Sometimes, the type of case also matters -and one of the responsibilities of your attorney is not allow this to happen. Your party must use the given timeframe wisely so as not to invalidate your case. For sure, every attorney knows about the statute of limitation.

If you happen to incur serious and severe damages especially if it leads to permanent disability, your attorney works best in this case. Your lawyer has to make sure that you will get the necessary payment. Aside from the physical injuries, your employer has other liabilities. This includes pain and suffering, loss of wages, mental anguish, and capacity to earn a living. In the event your demanded claim is denied, you will be asked by your work injury attorney if you are willing to bring your case to the court. This is a good chance for you to make sure that your employer and the insurance company of your employer will pay their responsibilities to you.

Top 4 Tips on Hiring the Right Personal Injury Attorney

OUCH! You've just had an accident!! Did someone else cause you the accident because of something they did (they hit you with their car), or something they failed to do (a restaurant manager didn't take care to dry the bathroom floors, and you slipped and fell)? If you got hurt because of someone else, the law may award you some compensation for your suffering or lost wages.

The key thing to remember is that if you have been involved in an accident, it is your right to claim compensation. But claiming compensation can be complicated, so you owe it to yourself to get in touch with a personal injury attorney.

A personal injury attorney is indispensable in personal injury cases. She will guide you on the formalities required to file your claim. Your personal injury attorney will also appear in court as your representative. She will cross examine witnesses and plead your case before the judge. But not just any personal injury attorney will do; to give yourself the best chance of winning your case, that you win your claim, it is important that you hire a highly competent personal injury attorney.

Here are the four top tips to help you hire the right personal injury attorney:

Tip 1: Ask people you know. The best way to find out about a good personal injury attorney is by asking your colleagues, friends and relatives. Make a list of all the personal injury attorneys referred to you. Then, sort them in order of the strength of the recommendation.

Tip 2: Use a lawyer referral service. Another way to find a personal injury attorney is by talking to a lawyer referral service that lists personal injury attorneys. This method is especially useful if you are too busy, or incapacitated by your injury, to do your own research. You may have to pay a small fee for the service, but it will save your time and effort.

Tip 3: Use the Yellow Pages. You will find many personal injury attorneys listed in the Yellow Pages of your telephone directory. However, you will still have to do some additional research, as you can't rely completely on a Yellow Page listing to be assured of competence.

Tip 4: Interview potential candidates. Once you have zeroed in on a few potential candidates for your personal injury attorney, take the time to interview all the candidates before you finally select one. The best way is to do this in person, but if you cannot visit with them in person, a phone interview will suffice.

Advice For Choosing a Defense Attorney

Building a defense case can easily become a complicated task. If you aren't careful in choosing the proper Philadelphia defense attorney, you could seriously end up damaging your future with possible imprisonment and a criminal record. Before you begin your search for a defense attorney, there are a few things you should know that may help ease the process for you.

The first step in hiring an attorney is to understand which area of law your case falls under so you can search for a lawyer who specializes in that particular facet of law. For instance, a criminal case can easily require a great deal more tenacity in the courtroom than that of a misdemeanor, such as minor property damage and theft, as well as acts of violence. If you have been charged with a criminal offense, it would suit you best to only consider lawyers who have experience in criminal law, particularly in the area you are charged with, as a Philadelphia criminal defense lawyer will likely yield better results with your case.

Step two in the process of hiring a defense lawyer is to draft up a list of lawyers who you think might be able to help you. You can find candidates by browsing through the local phonebook and newspapers, as well as asking family members. Asking the opinion of people you trust can really cut down the quest for a lawyer, providing you get along well with him/her and can develop a sense of trust, as required with many attorney/client relationships. Another great source for finding candidates is online using Google or another good search engine. This is a great way to yield several results which you can trim down by adding more specific search criteria.

Next, you will want to find out if the attorney offers a free consultation. This is particularly important if you are on a budget, as paying for several consultations could lead you to feel pressured into "settling" with a lawyer to end the mounting consultation fees. Start setting up appointments with a handful of lawyers or so to carry out a short face-to-face interview.

Your meeting in person with the lawyer is quite imperative, as you need to be sure you can get along well with your lawyer. You will be asked a series of questions about your case, after which you may ask a few questions about the lawyer. Some good questions to ask are how long the lawyer has practiced defense law in Pennsylvania, how much they charge for cases such as yours, and what their win/lose ratio is. You can research the lawyer's previous cases, and pay particular attention to those that closest resemble yours. You can get a good idea how the lawyer would handle your case based on whether they have won or lost more cases like yours.

Remember these bits of advice when you're looking for a lawyer and you should find the process a little less overwhelming. Also, keep in mind that your future and freedom could be at stake, therefore it's okay to be a bit nit-picky when selecting your Philadelphia attorney.

Pennsylvania Personal Injury Attorney Talks About Philadelphia Personal Injury Dead Man's Act

This is the second in a series of articles about the Dead Man's Act. "The purpose of the Statute is to prevent the injustice that may result from permitting a surviving party to a transaction to give testimony favorable to himself and adverse to the decedent, which the decedent's representative would be in no position to refute by reason of the decedent's death." Weschler v. Carroll, 578 A.2d 13, 15 (Pa. Super. 1990). Since David Edwards is unable to testify as to the events just prior to his being run over by defendants' tractor-trailer, a great injustice will result if defendant, Nicolas Pinger is permitted to testify adversely to David Edwards. Similarly, defendant must not be permitted to offer expert testimony regarding the collision between defendants' truck and the decedent based on information provided by defendant, Nicolas Pinger. Such testimony would be impermissibly based on information barred from evidence by the "Dead Man's Act".

Defendants should be precluded from offering any trial testimony regarding the collision between defendants' truck and the decedent from defendant, Nicolas Pinger because such testimony is barred by the "Dead Man's Act". Similarly, under the "Dead Man's Act", defendants should be precluded from offering at trial any expert testimony regarding the collision between defendants' truck and the decedent based on information provided by defendant, Nicolas Pinger.

Although the Act is most frequently applied in estates cases, it is also applicable to preclude testimony about the circumstances of an accident with a decedent. See Lyons v. Bodek's Estate, 142 A.2d 199 (Pa. 1958); Weschler, supra. Defendants in personal injury cases commonly assert the protections of the Act to defend actions brought against a decedent. If a negligent motorist can escape liability for inflicting injury, certainly the Act is available to assist the estate of a deceased in seeking compensation under the Wrongful Death and Survival Acts.

Pennsylvania Personal Injury Attorney And Pennsylvania Personal Injury Contributory Negligence

The defendants have the burden of proving the existence of contributory negligence. Defendants must prove that plaintiff acted unreasonably under the circumstances and that her conduct was a substantial factor in causing her injuries. Hanlon v. Sorenson, 289 Pa. Super. 268, 433 A.2d 60 (1981). It is not plaintiff's burden to prove her freedom from any such negligence.

Contributory negligence can be found as a matter of law only in clear cases. Arco v. Goodstein, 265 A.2d 783 (1970); Dolin v. J.J. Newberry Company, 466 A.2d 174 (Pa. Super. 1983). There can be "no room for fair and reasonable disagreement as to its existence." Skalos v. Higgins, 449 A. 2d 601, 604 (Pa. Super. 1982.) Plaintiff is required to use only the ordinary care that a prudent person would use under the circumstances. Peair v. Home Associations of Enola Legion #751, 430 A.2d 655 (Pa. Super. 1981).
Defendants often cite the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 343A in concluding that plaintiff was contributorily negligent for an accident. Section 343A protects possessors of land from liability from "known" or "obvious" dangers, "unless the possessor should anticipate the harm despite such knowledge or obviousness."

To be "known", the danger must "not only be known to exist, but ... also be recognized that it is dangerous and the probability and gravity of the threat and harm must be appreciated." Berman v. Radnor Rolls, Inc. 542 A.2d. 525, 531 (Pa. Super. 1988), citing, Carrender v. Fitterer, 469 A.2d. 120, 124 (Pa. 1983).

What constitutes an "obvious" danger is an issue of fact for the jury's determination, requiring denial of a Motion for Summary Judgment. Brown v. Sears Robuck and Company, E.D. Pa; Hutton, J.; July 18, 1990; no. 89-3556; slip op.
"A danger is deemed to be 'obvious' when 'both the condition and the risk are apparent to and would be recognized by a reasonable man, in the position of the visitor, exercising normal perception, intelligence and judgment." Id., citing Carrender, at 123 (emphasis added.) It is, therefore, crucial to consider the perception, intelligence and judgment of a plaintiff at the time of this accident in order to determine whether the danger presented by the sign frame was "obvious" to her.

In Berman, supra, the Superior Court ruled that the trial court's refusal to charge the jury on the issues of "known" or "obvious" dangers was proper. In Berman, the plaintiff was roller skating. After he was bumped by another skater, this plaintiff lost his balance, skating through an opening in a railing onto a carpet area and down a six-inch drop off in the floor level. Ultimately he struck his head against a cabinet or shelf which protruded beyond vending machines.
The condition of the rink, the wide entrance, the six-inch drop off and the placement of the vending machines were all apparent. None of the conditions were concealed in any way. Nevertheless, the Court could not say that these conditions would be "known" or "obvious" to a reasonable person in the position of the plaintiff. The court carefully considered that this skater lost and regained his balance while traveling at a good rate of speed. He did not have an adequate opportunity under the circumstances to recognize the danger the six-inch step posed to him.

The Court in Berman concluded that while the skater was charged with the general risks of skating, he was not charged with knowledge of how the risk to him was increased above that caused by normal skating by the physical lay out of the building. Id. at 536.

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

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.

Montgomery County - Pennsylvania Personal Injury Attorney On Montgomery County - PA Personal Injury

Injuries suffered on leased premises present certain difficulties for plaintiffs. "The law is clear that a landlord out of possession is generally not liable for bodily harm sustained on his property by his tenant and those on the premises under his tenant's right when he is entirely out of possession and control. Craig v. Ryan, 191 A.2d 711, 713 (Pa. Super. 1963)(emphasis added).

Whether a landlord is out of possession or in possession is a fact specific issue. For example, one factor is whether the landlord makes repairs to the property. See Henze v. Texaco, Inc., 508 A.2d 1200 (Pa. Super. 1986); Pierce v. Philadelphia Housing Authority, 486 A.2d 1004, 1005, (Pa. Super. 1985). In Pierce, the fact that PHA took care of maintenance and collecting rent created an inference not only of possession and/or control by PHA, but also of responsibility to keep the stairways of the property in good repair.

In all of the cases where the court has determined that the landlord was "out of possession", there was a lease between the parties. The Superior Court likens a lease to a sale, with responsibility for defects passing to the tenant unless otherwise provided for in lease. Kobylinski v. Hipps, 519 A.2d 488 (Pa. Super. 1986).
Where a contract is silent as to the subject of maintenance of the leased premises, and where the defendant performed needed maintenance during the period of the lease, there arises a "necessary implication" that the defendant had a duty to maintain the premises in good repair and reasonably safe for use by the tenants. McDevitt v. Terminal Warehouse Company, 450 A.2d 991, 998 (Pa. Super. 1982). How much moreso is this true in the case where there is no evidence of a lease at all.

Further, even if it were determined that the landlords were "out of possession", there are several exceptions to the rule that attach liability to an out of possession landlord. Kobylinski v. Hipps, 519 A.2d 488 (Pa. Super. 1986). For example, liability will attach to an out of possession landlord where the landlord conceals or fails to disclose to the tenant a condition that involves unreasonable risk of physical harm to persons on the property. Id.