Pennsylvania Car Accident and Personal Injury Lawyer Tim Rayne talks about why you should choose Full Tort not Limited Tort on your Pennsylvania Car Insurance.

Full Tort is more expensive coverage than Limited Tort but it protects your Full Legal Rights to fair compensation after being injured in a Car Accident caused by someone else. Limited Tort is cheaper coverage but important legal rights are compromised by the choice.

With Full Tort, you can recover Economic Damages like Medical Bills, Out-of-Pocket Costs and Lost Income but can also recover Non-Economic Damages like money for Pain and Suffering.

With Limited Tort, you can recover Economic Damages but cannot recover Non-Economic Damages unless you suffer a Serious Injury.

To learn more about your legal rights to compensation after being injured in a Pennsylvania Car Accident Contact Tim Rayne at 610-840-0124 or trayne@macelree.com or check out his website at www.TimRayneLaw.com.

MacElree Harvey Pennsylvania Personal Injury Lawyer Tim Rayne talks about the recent $1.7 Billion verdict against Ford Motor Company in a pickup rollover death case.

For more information or for help with an injury or death case in Pennsylvania, Contact Tim Rayne at 610 840 0124 or trayne@macelree.com.

On August 18, 2022, a Georgia Jury hit Ford Motor Company for $24 million in compensatory damages from two deaths resulting from the rollover of a 2002 F-250 Pick-up Truck. A day later, the Jury added $1.7 Billion in Punitive Damages.

Ford has appealed and the case will likely be settled or the Punitive Damages reduced, but the case provides a textbook example of how Products Liability Cases can help motivate companies to make safer products.

What Happened in the Ford Case?

From 1999 through 2016 Ford manufactured millions of Super duty trucks – Models F250, F350 and F450, that became known for having roof failures in roll-over accidents that would kill or maim its occupants.

Rather than issue a recall and fix the trucks for about $100 per truck, Ford chose to roll the dice, defend the injury and death cases and enter into Confidential Setttlements which hid the problem from the public.

In 2014, an elderly couple, Voncile and Melvin Hill, was killed when their Ford Super Duty F-250 pickup truck rolled over on a rural Georgia road.

The Hill children retained lawyers who determined that there were over 80 similar accidents involving Ford truck rollovers. So, Ford knew about the danger. The lawyers also discovered that, rather than publicizing the roof system problem, recalling the trucks and fixing them, Ford insisted that the trucks were safe enough and decided to defend any legal claims that were made and to keep any settlements of those lawsuits confidential.

After Ford caused a mistrial in the first Hill trial, the case was retried this Summer. The Hills sought compensatory damages to try to make up for the damages caused but the death of their parents. They also requested Punitive damages to punish Ford for “acting willfully and wantonly, with a conscious indifference for the safety of the people who ride in their cars.”

The result was a massive win for the Hills and a message to Ford, that this Jury would not tolerate evidence that Ford knew about a danger and swept it under the rug rather than warning its customers and fixing the problem.

This case is an example of how Personal Injury Litigation can publicize dangerous situations and motivate companies to implement safeguards to prevent future accidents, injuries and deaths.

Tim Rayne is a Pennsylvania Personal Injury Lawyer with the Chester County Law Firm MacElree Harvey. Tim helps injured accident victims understand their legal rights and receive fair treatment from insurance companies. You can contact Tim at 610 840 0124 or trayne@macelree.com or check out his Website at www.TimRayneLaw.com.

After deliberating for just 4.5 hours, a Federal Jury in Los Angeles handed down a massive $31 Million Verdict in a lawsuit filed by Kobe Bryant’s widow, Vanessa, and another family against LA County. The lawsuit arose from the actions of deputies and firefighters who took and shared gruesome photographs of the victims of the 2020 helicopter crash that killed Kobe, his daughter and 7 others.

The lawsuit claimed that LA County was Negligent in its training of its employees and that the deputies and firefighters violated Rights of Privacy by failing to keep images of the crash scene and deceased victims confidential.

In the two week Trial, evidence was presented proving that numerous graphic photos were taken of the deceased victims and that the photos were shared with multiple people. Luckily the photos were not widely published on the internet, but it remains unclear as to whether all photos were deleted due to delays in investigation by the County. During the delay, phones and computers were replaced or reset casting doubt as to whether or not all of the images have been permanently deleted.

LA County apologized to the families, but argued that there were legitimate reasons why the photos were taken during the crash investigation and that the harm was mitigated because the photos had been deleted before they could be widely publicized.

At the end of the Trial, the Jury awarded $16 Million to the Bryant family and $15 Million to the other family.

Lawsuits by two other families were settled before the Trial with each family receiving $1.25 Million.

Certainly shock and anger about this outrageous conduct motivated the Jury to award such a big Verdict to the families.

Tim Rayne is a Personal Injury Lawyer with the full-service Chester County Pennsylvania based law firm MacElree Harvey. Tim helps injured victims of accidents understand their legal rights and navigate the insurance claim process. He is also an experienced Trial Lawyer who has tried cased to verdict in Pennsylvania and other States. Contact Tim at 610-840-0124 or trayne@macelree.com or check out his website at www.TimRayneLaw.com.

On August 25, 2022, after extensive debate and consideration, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court adopted amendments to the Rules of Civil Procedure to eliminate restrictions regarding Venue (where a lawsuit can be filed) that provided preferential treatment to Hospitals and Doctors in Medical Malpractice cases.

The amendments level the playing field between Victims and Health Professionals by removing a special Venue restriction providing that a lawsuit could only be filed in the County where the Malpractice occurred. Instead, Malpractice cases are treated like any other Injury case or Civil Lawsuit in which Venue is proper not just in the County where the incident occurred, but also any County where the Defendant can be served or regularly conducts business.

It is expected that the Venue change will level the playing field for Malpractice Victims by eliminating the huge advantage that Hospitals and Doctors enjoyed when defending Malpractice cases in suburban and rural counties which are notorious for Defense Verdicts or low monetary awards that do not fully compensate injury Victims.

Nevertheless, it is uncertain as to whether the Pennsylvania Legislature will take steps to attempt to reverse the Supreme Court’s action through legislation or a Constitutional Amendment.

What is Venue?

Venue is the place where something happens and, in the context of a lawsuit in Pennsylvania, it’s the County or Counties in which a lawsuit can be filed.

The general Venue rule for Civil Lawsuits in Pennsylvania is that a Defendant can be sued in the County (1) where the transaction or occurrence happened; (2) where the Defendant can be served with lawsuit papers; or (3) where the Defendant regularly conducts business.

So, when the Victim has an Injury claim, often he/she can choose from multiple Counties when deciding the Venue for the lawsuit.

The procedural rules allow the Victim to choose the Venue. However, the rules also allow the Defendant to object to the Venue if the chosen Venue for a particular case is very inconvenient for the parties or witnesses, in which case a Judge can decide to transfer Venue to a more appropriate County.

How Did Medical Malpractice Defendants Get a Preferential Venue Rule?

In 2002, in response to a perceived “Medical Malpractice Crisis” of a high number of case filings, high verdicts and increasing insurance premiums, the Pennsylvania legislature passed the Medical Care Availability and Reduction of Error Act which, in part, implemented preferential Venue rules for Medical Malpractice cases.

Rather than Medical Malpractice Victims having a right to choose from multiple Counties, the Venue rule change provided that Venue of Medical Malpractice case was limited to “the county in which the cause of action arose.”

So, if an injury occurred in a Hospital in Chester County, the Venue for the Malpractice claim had to be Chester County, even if the Hospital had other locations in other Counties.

What Was the Problem with the Special Medical Malpractice Venue Rule?

On its face, the special rule may seem to make sense. Why not have the lawsuit Venue be limited to the location where the injury occurred?

The answer is fundamental fairness. Why should Hospitals, Doctors and other Medical Professional be entitled to special rules? Other injury cases can have Venue in multiple counties, so why limit the choices of a Malpractice Victim?

More importantly, the special Venue granted a clear advantage for Defendants in many cases.

Statistically, it is known that the urban counties of Pennsylvania, particularly Philadelphia and Allegheny Counties, have more favorable results in terms of both win/loss percentages and amount of compensation awarded in Medical Malpractice cases compared to suburban or rural counties.

So, if a Medical Malpractice Victim was injured in a suburban or rural County, he/she was put behind the eight ball by the special Venue rule, making it much more likely that he/she would lose the case outright or get a low verdict. This results in Medical Malpractice Victims receiving unfair treatment from our Court system compared to other litigants.

At the same time, there is no doubt that the special Venue rule, resulted in many non-catastrophic Medical Malpractice cases in suburban or rural Counties not being filed at all because of the risk of losing or getting and unfair Verdict in an unsympathetic Venue. It can also be argued that lack of accountability for all Medical Mistakes have likely made Pennsylvania’s medical institutions less safe. Accountability creates a financial incentive to improve safety.

Why and How were the Medical Malpractice Venue Rules Changed?

After extensive study and debate, the Rules Committee proposed the change to eliminate the special Venue rules for Medical Malpractice claims.

The Committee determined that the basic rationale in favor of the special Venue rules was the premise that juries in less populous counties are more likely to side in favor of Medical defendants and/or to award less compensation and that this was fundamentally unfair to the Victims.

The Committee concluded that Medical Malpractice claims should have the same Venue rules as any other Injury claim. The Committee also noted that the general Venue rules have safeguards for Defendants allowing them to object to improper or inconvenient Venue.

Ultimately, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court agreed with the Committee and, on August 25, 2022, amended the Venue rules eliminating the special treatment for Medical Malpractice claims. The Rule change becomes effective on January 1, 2023.

A backlash is expected from the insurance industry and it remains to be seen whether it will be able to convince the Pennsylvania Legislature to reinstate the Venue restriction through legislation or Constitutional Amendment.

However, for the time being it appears that the playing field for litigation between Victims of Medical Malpractice and the Medical Providers will be leveled on January 1, 2023.

Tim Rayne is a Medical Malpractice and Personal Injury Lawyer with the Chester County based law firm MacElree Harvey. For over 25 years, Tim has been helping injured victims of accidents and Medical Malpractice understand their legal rights and receive fair compensation for their injuries. Contact Tim at 610-840-0124 or trayne@macelree.com or visit his Website www.TimRayneLaw.com.

According to the US Consumer Product Safety Commission, 3,000 people are injured each year by beach umbrellas. The most common and sometimes deadly injuries involve bystanders being hit or even impaled by a flying beach umbrella dislodged by high winds.

A flying beach umbrella turned lethal this week in South Carolina when it struck and killed a 63 year old woman.

A similar death occurred in 2016 when a 55 year old woman was impaled by a windblown beach umbrella in Virginia Beach.

Summer Safety Lesson – Be Careful with Beach Umbrellas

When using your beach umbrellas make sure that the conditions are appropriate for umbrellas. If it’s too windy, don’t risk it.

If conditions allow safe use of a beach umbrella, don’t half-ass it! Make sure that you properly anchor the umbrella so it won’t fly away and injure someone.

Also, never leave the area with the umbrella still up. If you plan to take a long walk or go back to the house for lunch, put the umbrella down. Weather conditions can change quickly in the Summer resulting in high winds and dangerous/deadly flying umbrellas.

Case in Point from My Law Practice – Case of the Flying Umbrella

It wasn’t on the beach, but I recently represented a woman who was injured by a flying beach umbrella.

A private club had plastic picnic tables with large beach umbrellas threaded through the center of them that they failed to anchor securely in a heavy base. On a night that strong thunderstorms were forecasted and many elderly guest were present, the facility decided to leave the umbrellas up.

When a storm arrived, strong gusts of wind blew through the area and sent the umbrellas flying.

One of the umbrellas struck my client, knocked her over and she broke her hip, requiring surgery and a long and painful rehab.

Our lawsuit against the facility was ultimately successful because it was Negligent for failing to properly secure the umbrellas.