One of the most common types of Personal Injury Claims in Pennsylvania is for Slip and Fall accidents on Snow or Ice. Whether or not an injured victim has a legal claim depends on whether the property owner was Negligent, which depends on the individual circumstances of each case.

Here are some general rules:

Falls During or Very Shortly After a Storm are Hard to Win

Negligence requires notice of a dangerous condition and a reasonable amount of time to correct it. Consequently, if a Slip and Fall happens during a Snow or Ice storm or very shortly thereafter, it’s difficult to argue that the property owner was Negligent.

Pennsylvania law acknowledges that it’s not possible to keep a property clear of Snow and Ice at all times. The law gives property owners a reasonable time after the storm to plow, shovel and salt to make the property reasonably safe.

Pennsylvania’s Strange “Hills and Ridges Rule”

Consistent with the premise that Negligence requires an opportunity to fix the dangerous condition, Pennsylvania law gives property owners time to clean up after a Snow or Ice Storm before facing potential liability for an injury.

Pennsylvania Courts created a Rule called the “Hills and Ridges Rule” which provides that when there are generally slippery conditions from a Snow or Ice storm, the property owner can only be held liable if (1) the Snow or Ice had accumulated on the area of the fall in ridges or elevations of such size and character as to unreasonably obstruct pedestrian travel; and (2) the property owner knew about it or it existed for such a time period that the property owner should have known about it.

Exceptions to the “Hills and Ridges Rule”

The Hills and Ridges Rule does not apply to all Slip and Fall incidents on Snow or Ice. Instead, it only applies to natural accumulations from storms.

If something else caused the slippery condition, like an improperly placed downspout or melt and refreeze from plowed or shoveled snow, then the Hills and Ridges Rule does not prevent a successful Slip and Fall lawsuit.

What to do if You have Been Injured on Snow or Ice in Pennsylvania

If you have been injured in a Slip and Fall accident on Snow or Ice, you should do several things to protect your legal rights:

• Take photos and video of the condition that caused you to fall
• Report the incident to the property owner
• Obtain medical treatment if you are injured
• Seek legal advice to determine your rights

Tim Rayne is a Pennsylvania Personal Injury Lawyer with the law firm MacElree Harvey. For over 25 years, Tim Rayne has been helping injured accident victims understand their legal rights and receive fair treatment from insurance companies. Tim has law offices in Kennett Square and West Chester Pennsylvania and meets with their clients at their homes or virtually. Contact Tim Rayne at 610-840-0124 or trayne@macelree.com or check out his website at www.TimRayneLaw.com.

On December 23, 2023 the Pennsylvania Supreme Court decided Sullivan v. Werner Company, in which it ruled that evidence of compliance with industry standards is inadmissible in Pennsylvania Products Liability cases. In doing so, the Supreme Court doubled down on its commitment to the Section 402A of the Second Restatement of Torts being the law of the land in Pennsylvania regarding defective and dangerous product injuries.

(Incidentally, both the Sullivan Trial and appeal were litigated by good friends of mine and excellent Trial Lawyers at the Philadelphia firm of Laffey Bucci Kent who did an amazing job for both their clients and the whole Pennsylvania Plaintiffs’ bar!)

The Facts of the Sullivan v. Werner Company Case

Michael Sullivan was seriously injured on a jobsite when the platform of a six-foot tall mobile scaffold collapsed which caused him to fall through the scaffold onto the ground. The platform of the scaffold was secured to the frame by spring-loaded pins.

Sullivan sued the manufacturer of the scaffold, Werner Company, alleging that the scaffold was defective and dangerous because the design was such that the pins could inadvertently rotate during normal use of the scaffold which could cause the deck to collapse and the user to be injured.

At Trial, Werner Company tried to introduce evidence that the design of the scaffold complied with federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations and American National Standard Institute (ANSI) standards which would support their argument that the scaffold was reasonably safe and not dangerous.

Sullivan filed a Motion in Limine to preclude the admission of the safety regulations and industry standards, arguing that the evidence was not permitted because Pennsylvania follows the Second Restatement regarding Products Liability which requires a focus on the product itself to determine whether it is defective and dangerous, rather than the conduct of the manufacturer such as its compliance with industry standards.

The Trial Judge sided with Sullivan and precluded the OSHA/ANSI regulations and standards evidence. The Jury found that the scaffold was defective and awarded Sullivan $2.5 Million in compensation for his injuries and damages.

Werner Company appealed the Jury Verdict, claiming that the Judge erred in failing to permit evidence of industry standards. Sullivan won the appeal first in the Pennsylvania Superior Court and now in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

How is a Product Defective Under Pennsylvania Law and in the Sullivan Case?

In the Sullivan v. Werner Company case, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court reaffirmed the fact that Pennsylvania follows Section 402A of the Restatement Second of Torts regarding Products Liability Law which states the following:

(1) One who sells any product in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer or to his property is subject to liability for physical harm thereby caused to the ultimate user or consumer, or to his property, if

(a) the seller is engaged in the business of selling such a product, and

(b) it is expected to and does reach the user or consumer without substantial change in the condition in which it is sold.

(2) The rule stated in Subsection (1) applies although:

(a) the seller has exercised all possible care in the preparation and sale of this product, and

(b) the user or consumer has not bought the product from or entered into any contractual relation with the seller.

A product can be defective because it is improperly designed or manufactured, or if it does not contain appropriate instructions or warnings.

In the Sullivan v. Werner Company case, Sullivan alleged that the scaffold was defectively defective designed under the Risk/Utility Theory.

Under Risk/Utility, the Jury was given the following instructions:

Under the Risk/Utility test, a product is defective if a reasonable person would conclude that the possibility and seriousness of harm outweighed the burden or cost to the manufacturer of making the product safe.

To decide whether the product is defective under this test, you should consider the following factors: The usefulness and desirability of the product, its utility to the user and to the public as a whole, the safety aspects of the product, the likelihood that it will cause injury, the availability of a substitute product which would meet the same need and not be as unsafe, the manufacturer’s ability to eliminate the unsafe character of the product without impairing the usefulness or making it too expensive to maintain its utility, the user’s ability to avoid danger by the exercise of care in the use of the product, the user’s anticipated awareness of the dangers inherent in the product and their availability, because of the general public knowledge of the obvious condition of the product or the existence of suitable warnings or instructions.

You may not consider any negligence, that is lack of due care, by Plaintiff, Michael Sullivan, when performing this test for defectiveness. Rather, you must consider what product a reasonable manufacturer would design, given all the factors listed above.

Why Did the Supreme Court Decide that Industry Standards Should not be Presented to the Jury?

Ultimately, the Supreme Court held that the Trial Court properly excluded the OSHA/ANSI industry standards from being presented to the Jury during the Trial.

In doing so, the Supreme Court reasoned that compliance with industry standards relates to the conduct of the manufacturer which, in a Negligence case, would be proper because the legal standard is whether the manufacturer used “Reasonable Care” in the design of the product.

However, Sullivan was not pursing a claim for Negligence. Instead, he was alleging a violation of Product Liability law under the Risk/Utility Test, claiming that the scaffold design was defective and unreasonably dangerous because the pins could shift and the scaffold deck could collapse during normal use.

In its decision, the Supreme Court reasoned that allowing industry standards evidence would improperly introduce Negligence concepts into a Product Liability Trial. The focus of a Product Liability case is the “characteristics of the Product” and whether or not the Product is defective and dangerous, not the conduct of the manufacturer, like compliance with industry standards.

The Supreme Court stated that “[c]ompliance evidence does not prove any characteristics of the product; rather it diverts attention from the product’s attributes to both the manufacturer’s conduct and whether a standards-issuing organization would consider the product to be free from defects. Neither of these considerations is pertinent to a risk-utility analysis.”

This holding by the Supreme Court is pivotal, both because it ends the open issue of the admissibility of industry standards in Pennsylvania Products Liability cases and because the Supreme Court reaffirmed the continued use of Section 402A of the Restatement Second as the law of the land in Pennsylvania.

Tim Rayne is a Pennsylvania Personal Injury Lawyer with the law firm MacElree Harvey. For over 25 years, Tim has been helping injured accident victims understand their legal rights and receive fair treatment from insurance companies. Tim offers Free Consultations in either his West Chester or Kennett Square, PA offices and also meets with clients at their homes or remotely via Zoom or FaceTime. Tim can be contacted at 610-840-0124 or trayne@macelree.com or you can check out his website at www.TimRayneLaw.com.

There are thousands of Amazon drivers delivering packagaes around the state of Pennsylvania each day. It’s a stressful job dealing with traffic, deadlines and the challenge of getting all those packages to their destinations.

Inevitably, accidents and injuries will occur, some serious and even fatalities caused by driving mistakes by Amazon drivers.

So, what happens if you fall victim to the negligent driving of an Amazon delivery person?

Who is Liable?

What legal rights to Compensation do you have?

What should you do to protect your legal rights?

Who is Liable – Amazon? the Driver? another Company? All of the above?

Amazon often uses contractors – or Direct Service Providers – to deliver its packages. Amazon has written agreements with the Direct Service Providers and Drivers concerning who is liable for accidents, as well as insurance requirements and agreements concerning who will defend and pay injury claims.

As an accident victim, it’s important to explore all possible avenues to hold the Driver, Direct Service Provider, Contractor and Amazon liable. You should be sure to get the identity of the Driver and his/her employer and call the Police to the accident scene to investigate and document the Accident.

Then, if you are injured, you should consult with an experienced Car Accident Lawyer as soon as possible to protect your legal rights.

An experienced lawyer will know how to present claims against all possible defendants – the Driver, the Contractor/Direct Service Provider and Amazon corporate.

Amazon often tries to avoid responsibility by claiming that the Drivers are independent contractors employed by another independent entity but strong arguments exist to hold Amazon jointly or vicariously liable because of the control it exercises over the Drivers and the delivery process.

In a catastrophic injury or death case, it can be critical to present a strong claim against Amazon because the Driver and Contractor will likely have limited insurance to cover the accident and pay for injuries and damages. You should not sell your claim short by ignoring the potential liability of the Direct Service Provider and Amazon corporate.

What Compensation are you Entitled to After an Amazon Driver Injures You?

There are several items of Compensation that you are potentially entitled to after being injured in a car accident caused by an Amazon Driver which include:

• Medical Bills -Past and Future
• Lost Income and Earning Capacty
• Other Expenses
• Damage to or replacement of your Vehicle and other Property
• Scarring and Disfigurement
• Disability and the Negative Impact on your Life Activities

How To Protect Your Rights to Compensation After an Accident Caused by an Amazon Delivery Driver in Pennsylvania?

Here are Six Steps to Take to Protect your Legal Rights to Compensation after being Injured by an Amazon Delivery Driver in Pennsylvania:

Step One – Call the Police

Step Two – Take Photos of the Scene and Vehicles

Step Three – Get proof of identity of the Amazon Driver and his/her Employer

Step Four – Identify Witnesses to the Accident

Step Five – Get Medical Treatment

Step Six – Retain an Experienced Car Accident Lawyer to Deal with the Driver, Direct Service Provider, Amazon and all of the Insurance Companies.

Tim Rayne is a Pennsylvania Car Accident and Personal Injury lawyer with the Pennsylvania law firm MacElree Harvey. For over 25 years, Tim has been helping car accident victims understand their legal rights and receive fair compensation from insurance companies. Contact Tim for a Free Evaluation of your Car Accident Claim at 610-840-0124 or trayne@macelree.com or check out his website at www.TimRayneLaw.com.

One thing you should never do after a Pennsylvania Car Accident is give a recorded statement to either your car insurance company or the insurance company for the other driver.

Car insurance adjusters will want to get your version of how the accident happened as well as ask you questions about your injuries and damages.

You have a contractual obligation to cooperate and speak to your insurance company but you don’t need to give a recorded statement. Regarding the insurance company that represents another driver, you have no obligation to talk to that adjuster and should not.

Anything you say can and will be used against you.

Just like with the Police, the insurance companies may try to use anything you say against you.

You might be injured and nervous. You might be confused. You might misunderstand a question. You may inadvertently say something inaccurate. There are many reasons why you might make a mistake during a statement.

The Better Choice – Get a Lawyer and Let Him/Her Do the Talking

The safer course of action is to talk to a lawyer and have him/her do the talking for you after a car accident. Particularly if there are serious injuries involved, it’s a much better idea to retain a lawyer to be your communicator and protector rather than dealing directly with the insurance companies.

Tim Rayne is a Pennsylvania Car Accident and Personal Injury Lawyer with MacElree Harvey, Ltd. For over 25 years, Tim has been helping injured accident victims understand their legal rights and receive fair treatment from insurance companies. Tim has law offices in Kennett Square and West Chester Pennsylvania. Contact Tim Rayne for a Free Consultation at 610-840-0124 or trayne@macelree.com or check out his website at www.TimRayneLaw.com.