After a snow storm in Pennsylvania, Property Owners have a duty to use reasonable care to plow, shovel and salt to make the property safe and, at the same time, Pedestrians have rights to claim compensation if they are injured because the Property Owner does not.

Property Owners are given a reasonable time period after the storm ends to make the property safe for Pedestrians. Property Owners cannot be expected to keep it completely safe during a storm, but afterwards they have a responsibility to plow, shovel and salt. They also have a duty to salt as the snow melts and re-freezes.

If a Pedestrian slips and falls and is injured after a snow or ice storm, he/she may have a legal right to be compensated. That right depends on how, where and when the fall occurs as well as the extent of the injuries and damages.

For more information on your legal rights after a Slip and Fall Accident, contact Tim Rayne at 610-840-0124 or trayne@macelree.com or check out his website at www.TimRayneLaw.com.

On January 29, 2024, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court decided Rush v. Erie Insurance holding that a Regular Use Exclusion was valid and could be used to deny payment of Underinsurance Benefits under a personal Car Insurance Policy. This decision has widespread implications for drivers of Company Cars as well as workers who regularly drive vehicles that they do not own.

Facts of the Rush v. Erie Insurance Case

Matthew Rush was a detective for the City of Easton and was injured while driving an unmarked police car owned by the City. The police car was insured by Traveler’s and had just $35,000 of Underinsured Benefits.

Rush and his wife had two personal car insurance policies with Erie, one with stacked Underinsured Limits of $250,000 for one vehicle and the other with stacked Underinsured Limits of $250,000 for two vehicles.

Both Erie policies contained identical “Regular Use Exclusions” of Underinsured coverage, which provided that the underinsured coverage did not apply to “bodily injury to you or a resident using a non-owned motor vehicle, or a non-owned miscellaneous vehicle, which is regularly used by you or a resident, but not insured for uninsured or underinsured coverage under this policy.”

The driver responsible for causing the crash injuring Rush paid his policy limits as did Traveler’s for the City of Easton’s Underinsurance Benefits.

However, Erie denied the Rush Underinsurance claim for $750,000 citing the Regular Use Exclusion. Erie argued that Rush was driving a vehicle he did not own but regularly used, which invalidated Underinsured Coverage on the Erie policies.

The Court Decisions

After the Underinsurance Coverage was denied, Rush filed a lawsuit in Northhampton County against Erie claiming that the “Regular Use Exclusion” violated the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Responsibility Law which mandates that insurance companies provide Underinsurance coverage unless the policy holder signs a valid waiver form rejecting such coverage.

The Northampton Court ruled in favor of Rush as did the Pennsylvania Superior Court.

However, in a reversal of fortune for Rush and other Pennsylvania policy holders, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed the ruling and held that the Regular Use Exclusion does not violate Pennsylvania law and is permissible. Consequently, Rush could not claim Underinsurance Benefits under the Erie Policies.

Practical Implications for Drivers of Regularly Used but Non-Owned Vehicles

The practical implication of this decision by the Supreme Court is that it puts drivers who regularly use vehicles that they do not own (like company cars or vehicles used during the workday like government vehicles, construction vehicles or delivery vehicles) in a pickle.

If the Regular Use Exclusion had been determined to be invalid, then these drivers could have protected themselves and their families by purchasing large amounts of Underinsured Coverage on their own car insurance policies. That way, if they were injured in an accident while driving the non-owned vehicle, even if the responsible driver had little or no insurance, they could protect their right to full compensation by purchasing large amounts of uninsured and underinsured coverage. This would allow them to make a claim on their own policy and be fully compensated. In essence they could protect themselves and their families with their own car insurance choices.

However, with the Supreme Court upholding the Regular Use Exclusion, the net result is that the driver or a non-owned but regularly used vehicle cannot make a claim against his own insurance policy if it contains a Regular Use Exclusion. So, the policy holder has lost the ability to protect himself or herself.

This leaves the injured driver of a non-owned but regularly used vehicle reliant on the insurance choices of the owner of the vehicle. However, that owner could choose to waive Underinsurance benefits altogether or purchase limits as low as $15,000. This is a troublesome situation in that the vehicle must be used regularly for work, but might be grossly underinsured.

Given this landmark decision, I strongly recommend the following for anyone who must regularly drive a vehicle that they do not own.

First, try to find car insurance without a Regular Use Exclusion and make sure that you purchase high amounts of Underinsurance Coverage ($250,000 or more like Mr. Rush). Second, talk to your employer and find out how much Underinsurance coverage there is on the vehicle that you regularly drive. If the limits waived or are low, you should lobby your employer to significantly increase the limits to protect you and your family in the event of a serious accident.

Tim Rayne is a Pennsylvania Car Accident Lawyer with MacElree Harvey, Ltd. For over 25 years, Tim has been helping Pennsylvania Car Accident Victims understand their legal rights and receive fair compensation from insurance companies. Tim has law offices in Kennett Square and West Chester Pennsylvania and also meets with clients at their homes or virtually. Tim can be reached at 610-840-0124 or trayne@macelree.com or you can check out his website at www.TimRayneLaw.com.

Winter brings Snow and Ice making our roadways, parking lots and sidewalks Danger Zones. Slippery roads and overly aggressive driving results in Car Crashes. Property owners’ Negligence in failing to plow, shovel and salt their parking lots and sidewalks causes Slip and Fall Accidents.

Both Car Crashes and Slip and Fall Accidents lead to a variety of serious injuries like Head Injuries/Traumatic Brain Injuries, Neck and Back Injuries, Shoulder Tears and Fractures, Elbow and Wrist Fractures, Hip Fractures, Knee Injuries and Leg and Ankle fractures.

This makes Winter the most dangerous time of the year.

How can you avoid getting injured or sued after a Winter Snow or Ice Storm?

How Can You Avoid getting Injured in the Winter?

Here are some random Tips to avoid getting injured in Winter Snow and Ice Storms:

Tips for Drivers

• Get New Tires for your Vehicle
• Avoid driving in slippery conditions
• Clear all snow off your Vehicle’s windows for maximum visibility
• Clear snow off of your Vehicle hood and roof to prevent flying sheets of ice
• Drive more slowly and carefully
• Remember that Turning and Stopping are challenging in Snow and Ice
• Pay more attention on Hills and Curves
• Practice Defensive Driving – Be ready for others to make stupid mistakes
• If you have an accident and must leave your Car – Get away from the road and other drivers

Tips for Pedestrians

• Avoid going out during any Snow or Ice Storm
• If you must go out, then be mindful to wear slip resistant footwear
• Be careful where you walk – watch out for isolated Ice patches or Black Ice
• Walk more slowly – particularly on stairs and hills
• If you fall and are injured, take photos and video of the condition and the area

How Can You Avoid Getting Sued in the Winter?

• Prepare your vehicle for Winter with new tires
• Avoid Driving in bad weather
• Drive with extra caution – slow down and watch out on curves and hills
• Plow, Shovel and Salt your Property promptly after any storm
• Watch out for areas that melt and refreeze and diligently re-salt those areas
• Make sure that you have enough Liability Coverage on your Vehicles and Property in case you get sued for Winter Injuries

Tim Rayne is a Personal Injury Lawyer with the Pennsylvania Law Firm MacElree Harvey. For over 25 years, Tim Rayne has been helping injured accident victims understand their legal rights and pursue fair compensation from insurance companies. Tim has law offices in Kennett Square and West Chester Pennsylvania and also meets with clients in their homes or virtually via FaceTime or Zoom. Contact Tim Rayne at 610-840-0124 or trayne@macelree.com for a Free Legal Consultation regarding your Injury Claim.

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.