Tim Rayne

Pennsylvania Car Accident & Personal Injury Lawyer

Tim Rayne

Pennsylvania Car Accident & Personal Injury Lawyer

Civil Lawsuits

Doing the Impossible – Valuing a Human Life in a Pennsylvania Wrongful Death Case

by

[column width=”1/1″ last=”true” title=”” title_type=”single” animation=”none” implicit=”true”]

Pennsylvania Personal Injury Lawyer Tim Rayne talks about how Pennsylvania Law does the Impossible – Value a Human Life in a Wrongful Death Case.

When someone dies in an accident in Pennsylvania caused by someone else’s Negligence, the family of deceased person can bring a Wrongful Death Claim seeking fair compensation.

The Executor or Administrator of the Estate has the legal right to bring a Wrongful Death claim and the beneficiaries of the Estate and certain family members like Parents, Spouse and Children, are entitled to the proceeds of the claim.

Each case is different, but there are generally three categories of compensation due:  1- the Economic Lost Earnings of the Decedent minus what it would have cost for personal maintenance; 2- Compensation to make up for the value of support and guidance for Parents, Spouse and Children; and 3- Compensation for any conscious Pain and Suffering of the deceased person.

For more information about Legal Claims arising out of a Wrongful Death in Pennsylvania, Contact Tim Rayne at 610-840-0124 or trayne@macelree.com.  For over 25 years, Tim Rayne has been helping families understand their legal rights and win fair compensation after losing a loved one in an accident.  Tim is a Partner at the Chester County based law firm MacElree Harvey.

[/column]

Controversial Court Ruling that SnapChat May be Liable for Injuries Caused by Speed Filter

by

[column width=”1/1″ last=”true” title=”” title_type=”single” animation=”none” implicit=”true”]

On March 15, 2022, the Georgia Supreme Court decided a controversial case ruling that Snapchat may be held liable for serious injuries allegedly caused by its Speed Filter feature. 

The Snapchat Speed Filter was a mobile phone application that allowed the user to record real life speed on a photo or video that can then be shared with other Snapchat users.

Christal McGee was using the Snapchat Speed Filter and was driving over 100 mph when she rear ended Wentworth Maynard causing him to suffer severe injuries.

Maynard sued McGee and Snapchat alleging that Snapchat was liable under a Products Liability theory because the manufacturer had a duty to design reasonably safe products. Snapchat filed a motion to dismiss arguing that the duty to design reasonably safe products does not extend to people injured by a third-party’s intentional misuse of the product.

After conflicting rulings from the lower courts, the Supreme Court of Georgia ultimately decided that Maynard‘s case should not be dismissed but instead should proceed through discovery and perhaps to trial.

The court reasoned that a manufacturer has a duty under Georgia law to use reasonable care in selecting from alternative designs to reduce reasonably foreseeable risks posed by its products. Addition, there is no blanket exception to a manufacturer’s design duty in all cases of intentional misuse of the product by a third-party.

Ultimately the court concluded that because the Maynards adequately alleged that Snapchat could reasonably foresee the particular risk of harm from the Speed Filter, the case should proceed rather than be dismissed.

Critical to the case was the fact that McGee told her three passengers right before the crash that she was “just trying to get the car to 100 mph to post it on Snapchat“ using Snapchat‘s Speed Filter. In addition, although it warned people not to drive and snap, Snapchat knew that people who were using the speed filter and driving at excessive speed and they were aware of other injuries that were alleged to have occurred due to speeding while using the Speed Filter. Moreover, the Speed Filter arguably encouraged this reckless activity by its users.

This case highlights the challenge that courts have when evaluating whether multiple people or companies should be responsible for an injury. In Products Liability/dangerous products cases, you often have a situation where a product is arguably being misused by the user and then an injury occurs to a third-party.  This begs the question, who should be held responsible, the manufacturer, the “misuser,”or both?

The Law tends to be tough on manufacturers, and for good reason.  The manufacturers are the ones putting the potentially dangerous product into use in the first place and they have the ability to provide a safer design or warnings as well as purchase insurance to protect any innocent victims who are harmed by the product.  

The legal test for liability of the manufacturer is generally should  they have reasonably foreseen that the product would be dangerous and did the risk outweigh the utility of the product? Also relevant is rather they could have implemented a safer alternative design of the product.

In this Snapchat case, the Court ultimately concluded that Snapchat knew that people were misusing the product so Snapchat should have reasonably foreseen that the Speed Filter could cause serious injuries or deaths.

Tim Rayne is a 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 compensation from insurance companies.  Tim has law offices in Kennett Square and West Chester Pennsylvania and also meets clients at their homes or virtually via Zoom or FaceTime.  Contact Tim Rayne at 6108400124 or trayne@macelree.com.  

[/column]

Will Smith and Chris Rock Slap Incident at The Oscars Demonstrates the Intentional Tort of Assault and Battery – Will there be a Lawsuit?

by

[column width=”1/1″ last=”true” title=”” title_type=”single” animation=”none” implicit=”true”]

The Slap Heard Around the World

The Will Smith and Chris Rock slapping incident at the Oscars is a good example of the Intentional Tort of Assault and Battery.

Like a car accident case which arises out of the tort of Negligence, the Intentional Tort of Assault and Battery can provide grounds for a civil lawsuit for money damages. However, it is very uncommon to see such a lawsuit because, as an intentional act, Assault and Battery is usually not covered by liability insurance policies. So, with no insurance company backing the person who committed the Assault and Battery, it is often difficult for the victim to recover compensation in a lawsuit. Unless the person who committed the act has significant personal assets, a lawsuit against them is usually a waste of time.  This being the case, most injuries arising out of violent intentional acts do not result in lawsuits.

Nevertheless, the Will Smith and Chris Rock slapping incident at the Academy Awards is a good example of an Assault and Battery that could lead to a lawsuit, but in my opinion probably will not.  Will Smith is rich, so insurance is not needed to get a recovery, but the injuries are likely not significant enough to lead to a lawsuit.

Let’s pretend that this incident occurred in Pennsylvania and talk about the Intentional Torts of Assault and Battery, which are actually two separate acts.

What is an Assault?

People generally believe that the act of an Assault involves striking another person with fists, feet or a weapon. However, under Pennsylvania law, an assault is something entirely different.

Rather, under Pennsylvania law, an Assault is “an act done with the intent to put another in reasonable and immediate fair fear of harmful or offensive contact that does, in fact, cause such fear.” To commit an Assault it is not necessary that person actually make physical contact with the body of another, it is enough that the person intended to cause fear of such contact.

So, in order to for a defendant to be held responsible for an Assault there are two elements: first, that the defendant intended to put the plaintiff in a reasonable and immediate fear of harmful or offensive contact; and second, that plaintiff as a result of the defendant’s act was put in reasonable and immediate fear of such contact.

In the context of Will Smith and Chris Rock, assume that Will approached Chris and raised his hand in a threatening manner close to Chris’s head. Even without the slap, that would be considered an Assault.

What is Battery?

The tort of Battery is something entirely different from Assault.

A Battery is an act committed with the intent to cause harmful or offensive contact with the body of another and that directly results in the harmful or offensive contact with the body of another. In order for a defendant to be held responsible for committing a Battery there are two elements: first, that the defendant intended to cause a harmful or offensive contact with the body of the plaintiff; and second, that the defendant’s act resulted in harmful or offensive contact with the plaintiff’s body. A body contact is considered “offensive” if it would offend a reasonable person‘s sense of dignity.

Under this definition, Will Smith actions were actually a Battery as well as an Assault since his hand made contact with Chris’s face and a reasonable person would consider that contact offensive.

What Damages are Recoverable for Assault and Battery?

Assuming that someone commits an Assault and Battery, what damages are recoverable under Pennsylvania law? The injured person can sue for physical and emotional pain and suffering, medical bills, lost income (if any) and other out-of-pocket expenses. Also, if the conduct is determined to be outrageous, the victim can also sue for Punitive Damages to punish the actor and deter him from committing such an act in the future.

Again in the context of the Will Smith and Chris Rock incident, it does not appear that Chris suffered any significant physical injuries. However, he could attempt to sue for emotional distress and embarrassment and could even try to make a claim for Punitive Damages given that the Assault and Battery occurred with millions of people watching on TV.

However, in my opinion, it’s extremely unlikely that Chris rock will bring a civil lawsuit against Will Smith. Chris is a wealthy comedian and likely would not want the negative publicity of seeming to try to cash in on this event. It is also likely that Chris feels somewhat guilty for making the insensitive joke. He may also feel bad about arguably provoking Will into committing the act that caused such a stir. In addition, proving actual damages would likely be difficult because of the lack of any serious physical injury.  In the end, I expect this all to blow over after Will makes a sincere apology.

Tim Rayne is a Personal Injury Lawyer with MacElree Harvey.  For over 25 years, Tim Rayne has been helping accident victims win fair compensation from insurance companies.  Tim has Law Office in Kennett Square and West Chester Pennsylvania and also meets with clients at their homes or virtually via Zoom or FaceTime.  Contact Tim Rayne at 6108400124 or trayne@macelree.com or check out his website www.TimRayneLaw.com.

[/column]

Legal Liability for Falling Trees or Tree Limbs In Pennsylvania

by

[column width=”1/1″ last=”true” title=”” title_type=”single” animation=”none” implicit=”true”]

Legal Liability for Falling Trees

As a Pennsylvania Personal Injury Lawyer, I’ve had two cases in which my clients were struck by falling trees and they had viable legal claims against the property owners for failing to inspect and maintain their trees.

Every property owner has a duty of reasonable care to prevent unnecessary injuries to people visiting their property and people driving on adjacent roadways.

As it relates to trees, property owners have ab obligation to inspect the trees on their property and to trim or remove them if the trees become rotten and dangerous.  It is foreseeable that a rotten tree could fall and could hurt or kill someone, so the property owner has a duty of care to inspect and trim or remove rotten trees to prevent an accident.

For more information about your legal rights or obligations after an accident, contact Pennsylvania Personal Injury Lawyer Tim Rayne at 610-840-0124 or trayne@macelree.com or check out Tim’s website www.TimRayneLaw.com.

[/column]

Video – Why Would Prince Andrew Settle the Sexual Assault Case?

by

[column width=”1/1″ last=”true” title=”” title_type=”single” animation=”none” implicit=”true”]

Pennsylvania Lawyer Tim Rayne talks about factors which may have motivated Prince Andrew to settle the Sexual Assault Lawsuit filed against him which likely included – Fear of losing, a desire not to testify under oath at a Deposition and Trial, not wanting to admit fault, wanting to limit his risk and a desire to keep the results Confidential.

For more information about your legal rights after an injury or Sexual Assault in Pennsylvania, contact Tim Rayne at 610-840-0124 or trayne@macelree.com or check out Tim’s website at TimRayneLaw.com.

[/column]

[column width=”1/1″ last=”true” title=”” title_type=”single” animation=”none” implicit=”true”]

[/column]

Prince Andrew Puts Spotlight Again of Sexual Assault Claims

by

[column width=”1/1″ last=”true” title=”” title_type=”single” animation=”none” implicit=”true”]

Prince Andrew Sexual Assault Settlement

News broke this week that Prince Andrew settled his civil sexual assault lawsuit.  Although details regarding the amount will likely remain confidential, the case almost certainly involves a compensation payment in excess of eight figures ($10 million) given the high profile nature of the case as well as the Prince’s prominent family and wealth.

This is just another in a long string of high profile sexual assault civil cases including claims against the Catholic Church, the Boy Scouts, Penn State‘s Jerry Sandusky and Bill Cosby, just to name a few.

As a Personal Injury Lawyer, I believe that it’s important that these cases are pursued aggressively in the civil court system in order to punish the wrong doers and deter them and others from committing these heinous acts of sexual assault.

The Criminal System

In some of these sexual assault cases there were also criminal charges and penalties for the wrong doers.  But a criminal case involves a much higher burden of proof (beyond a reasonable doubt) order to convict. That being the case, a lot of sexual assault cases do not get prosecuted criminally or do not result in a conviction and punishment for the perpetrator.

In addition, although the criminal system is good at punishing the wrongdoer and theoretically protecting society, it does little or nothing for the victim in terms of compensation for the lifelong consequences of a sexual assault.

The Civil System

The civil system, on the other hand, uses a much lower burden of proof. The victim is only required to prove that it is more likely than not that the assault occurred. This makes proving the case easier for the victim, particularly when there are no independent witnesses.

Second, the civil system is designed to hold a defendant accountable and to fairly compensate the victim for the injuries that he or she suffered. So, in the civil system, the goal is to hold the wrongdoer accountable and force him or her to make up for the damage by paying an award.  The jury decides whether the assault occurred and, if so, what is fair compensation for the perpetrator to pay.

Compensation and Punishment for Sexual Assault Perpetrators

In the civil case, the payment to the victim includes compensation for the injuries, physical and emotional, but also can include a punitive damage element, extra compensation in order to punish the defendant and deter him or her from committing a similar act again in the future.  With regard to the punitive damage claim, the wealth of the defendant becomes important because it is relevant in terms of deciding what amount of compensation would deter this defendant from committing the act again. So in the case of Prince Andrew, a very rich man, punitive damages could have been quite substantial.

In my view, it’s important to have both legal systems, the criminal system and the civil system available to sexual assault victims.  In the Prince Andrew case criminal charges were not filed, but the victim was able to file a civil lawsuit that was headed to trial until he decided to settle in order to avoid further public scrutiny that would come when he was forced to testify as well as the risk of a mammoth Verdict at trial.

Tim Rayne is a Personal Injury Lawyer with the Chester County based law firm MacElree Harvey, Ltd.  For over 25 years, Tim has been helping injured accident victims understand their legal rights and receive fair compensation from insurance companies.  Tim has experience in litigating diverse Personal Injury matters, including Sexual Assault and Sexual Abuse.  Contact Tim at 610-840-0124 or trayne@macelree.com for a Free Consultation or check out Tim’s website TimRayneLaw.com.  

[/column]