Tim Rayne

Pennsylvania Car Accident & Personal Injury Lawyer

Tim Rayne

Pennsylvania Car Accident & Personal Injury Lawyer

Uncategorized

Caught on Video – How a Falling Tree Nearly Became a Multi-Million Dollar Lawsuit – And Two Things Every Property Owner Must Know

by Leave a Comment

Just one foot left and she would have died when a rotten tree fell and landed on her car.

This would have been a tragedy – and a preventable one that would have likely resulted in a Multi-Million Dollar Lawsuit.

And the crazy part is that it happened right here in Kennett Square, Chester County Pennsylvania.

Property Owners’ Tree Maintenance Responsibilities

Property owners have a legal responsibility to maintain their properties so that they do not have any dangerous conditions that could cause foreseeable injuries to people on the property and also to motorists on adjacent roadways.

What that means regarding trees is that property owners have an obligation to inspect their trees and if they are dead, they present a risk of falling and injuring people on the property or motorists driving on roadways near the property. Those dead trees must be pruned or removed or else an injury can occur and the property owner can face legal liability.

Two Tips for Property Owners – Maintain Trees and Buy Liability Insurance Including an Umbrella Policy

To avoid liability for falling trees, property owners should inspect their trees every Spring. If, by the end of May, leaves are not growing on a tree or a limb, that tree should be removed or the limb should be pruned. Leaving that tree standing presents a risk of causing serious injury or death and facing a multimillion dollar lawsuit.

In addition, every property owner should make sure that they have adequate Liability Insurance to cover accidents on or adjacent to the property, including injuries or death caused by falling trees. Most property insurance Liability coverage is limited to $100,000 or $300,000. So, you should also consider buying an Umbrella Policy to cover claims that exceed that initial Liability coverage. I recommend that you consider purchasing a $1 Million or $2 Million Umbrella Policy which will likely cost between $500 and $1,000.

Two Falling Tree Cases

In my career, I have handled two falling tree cases.

In the first one, my client was attending a haunted hayride at a Chester County farm when a huge tree limb fell on her leg, causing a serious fracture that required surgery. We hired a tree expert who determined that the tree was long dead so the insurance for the farm owner paid my client fair compensation.

The second case involved a tree that fell on my client’s car as he was driving down Chester County roadway. He suffered a significant shoulder injury from the impact when the tree landed on his car. Just like the first case, we hired a Arborist who determined that the tree had been dead for many years. Again, the insurance for the property owner eventually paid my client a fair settlement.

If you have any other questions about your potential liability as a property owner or the insurance that you should purchase to protect your assets, or if you have the misfortune of being injured by falling tree, please contact Tim Rayne for more information at 610-840-0124 or trayne@macelree.com or check out his website www.TimRayneLaw.com.

Domino’s On the Hook for $2.3 Million Motorcycle Crash Jury Verdict – Lessons on Vicarious Liability and How to Sue a Franchisor

by Leave a Comment

When someone gets injured at a Franchise or by one of its employees, can the Franchisor be held liable for a Franchisee’s Negligence?

In a recent Pennsylvania case, a Domino’s Pizza Franchisor was held liable for a $2.3 Million Jury Verdict in favor of a Motorcycle Crash Victim who was injured by a Negligent Domino’s Franchisee Delivery Driver.

This case sheds light on Vicarious Liability and how to successfully sue a Franchisor.

What is Vicarious Liability and Why is it Important?

Vicarious liability is a legal doctrine that holds one party (Principal) responsible for the negligent actions of another party (Agent), based upon their relationship. Vicarious Liability is important in catastrophic injury cases because suing the alleged Principal can provide the accident victim additional compensation through the insurance coverage or assets of the Principal.

This Vicarious Liability concept is particularly significant in Franchise relationships, where Franchisors typically argue they are not responsible for the day-to-day operations of Franchisees. Franchisors often claim that the lack of control should negate any claim of Vicarious Liability.

However, a recent Pennsylvania Superior Court case, Coryell v. Domino’s Pizza LLC, provides a key example of how a Franchisor can be held liable for injuries caused by a Franchisee’s employee.

What Happened in the Recent Domino’s Pizza Case?

The case arose from a devastating motorcycle accident involving Clarence David Coryell. In July 2016, Steven Morris, a delivery driver for Robizza, Inc., a Domino’s Pizza Franchisee, made a negligent left turn, colliding with Mr. Coryell. The collision resulted in catastrophic injuries, ultimately leading to amputation of Coryell’s leg after multiple surgeries.

Cornell sued not only Morris (Delivery Driver) and Robizza (Franchisee) but also Domino’s Pizza LLC (Franchisor), arguing that Domino’s exercised such significant control over Robizza’s operations that it should be held vicariously liable for the accident. Domino’s, in contrast, claimed that its control over Robizza was limited to protecting its brand and ensuring product consistency, not day-to-day management.

The Legal Battle Over Vicarious Liability

The key question before the Court was whether Domino’s exercised enough control over Robizza to be considered legally responsible for its Franchisee’s negligence.

In Pennsylvania, a Franchisor can be held vicariously liable if it controls the “physical conduct in the performance of the service” of the Franchisee. In simpler terms, if the Franchisor dictates not just the outcome (e.g., high-quality pizza) but also the precise manner in which the Franchisee runs its business (e.g., employee training, delivery procedures, and customer service practices), then it may be responsible for the Franchisee’s actions.

During the trial, evidence showed that Domino’s dictated many aspects of Robizza’s operations beyond brand protection, including:

• Hiring and training procedures: Domino’s required Robizza to follow strict training programs.

• Operational policies: Domino’s set extensive rules on how the store must function, from cleaning schedules to customer service protocols.

• Delivery standards: The jury heard testimony that Domino’s exercised control over how deliveries were made, which was central to the accident at issue.

Ultimately, the jury found that Domino’s had either exercised or had the right to exercise sufficient control over Robizza, making the Franchisor vicariously liable for the crash. The verdict resulted in a judgment of over $2.3 million against Domino’s, Robizza, and the delivery driver.

Why this Domino’s Case Matters to Accident Victims and their Lawyers

For accident victims and Pennsylvania Personal Injury Lawyers, this case highlights an important legal avenue for securing full compensation. Franchisees often operate as small businesses with limited insurance coverage and assets. However, Franchisor’s like Domino’s have significantly greater financial resources and additional insurance policies. If a Franchisor can be held vicariously liable, an injured party has a much better chance of recovering full and fair compensation.

Key Takeaways Regarding Vicarious Liability of Franchisors

  • Injury victims and their lawyers should consider whether a Franchisor, not just the Franchisee, can be held responsible for their damages.
  • Franchisees should be aware that despite being labeled as independent businesses, the extent of control exerted by the Franchisor may impact liability.
  •  Franchisors should ensure that their franchise agreements and operational policies do not overreach into day-to-day management if they wish to avoid vicarious liability. In the alternative, Franchisors should increase their liability insurance coverage to protect their assets from potential claims of Vicarious Liability.

If you have questions about Pennsylvania Personal Injury Claims or how Vicarious Liability might apply, feel free to contact Tim Rayne, at 610-840-0124, trayne@macelree.com or TimRayneLaw.com for a free consultation.

How Can You Lose Your Right to a Jury Trial and Be Forced to Arbitrate and Why a Federal Judge Recently Rejected a Website’s Arbitration Clause?

by Leave a Comment

Most people assume that if they are wronged by a company, whether it’s a healthcare provider, a bank, or a retailer, they have the right to take that company to Court and have a Judge or Jury decide the case.

But what if I told you that you could lose your right to a Jury Trial by signing a Contract or even by just by visiting a website or using an app?

That is exactly what companies are doing through hidden Arbitration agreements buried in their Contracts or in their Website Terms of Service.

These agreements can force consumers into Arbitration, a private dispute resolution process that is generally thought to benefit corporations, leaving consumers with fewer rights and a reduced chance of a fair outcome.

The Recent PA Federal Case that Precluded Arbitration

A recent Pennsylvania federal court case, WW v Allegheny Health Network, illustrates this problem.

A patient who used Allegheny Health Network’s (AHN) website to find a doctor sued AHN for allegedly sharing private health information with third parties. AHN tried to force the patient into Arbitration, arguing that simply by using the AHN website, the patient had agreed to Arbitration because the Website Terms of Service stated that “anyone who uses this Site agrees to be bound by the terms of use” and the Terms of Use contained an Arbitration provision.

Why the Patient Won and Preserved His Jury Trial Rights

In the AHN case, the Judge ruled that the patient had not actually agreed to Arbitration because the provision was hidden in the website’s Terms of Service, which:

1. Were hard to find because the Arbitration clause was buried at the bottom of the website, mixed in with dozens of other links.

2. Did not require the user to affirmatively agree. Unlike contracts where you sign or check a box, or a Website that required you to click to accept the Terms of Service, this Website had the Arbitration provision imbedded in a Terms of Service link in the footer of the website.

3. Were never actually seen by the patient.

Because of these factors, the Judge ruled that the Arbitration agreement was not enforceable, allowing the lawsuit to move forward in Court.

How This Affects You?

Companies generally prefer Arbitrations over Jury Trials. Consumers are usually better off exercising their right to a Jury Trial rather than being forced into Arbitration at the outset of the case.

So, it is important for consumers to be aware of this issue and avoid agreeing to Arbitration, if possible.

If you are asked to sign an Arbitration agreement, try to avoid it. Cross out that paragraph in the contact before you sign. If you are on a Website, try to avoid agreeing to Terms of Service that require Arbitration.

Lawyers also need to be more cognizant of the existence of Arbitration provisions in Contracts as well as in Website Terms of Service.

The Court’s decision in the WW v. Allegheny Health Network case was a win for consumer rights, but it does not always happen this way. Many consumers never get their day in court because they unknowingly agree to Arbitration. The best way to fight back is to stay informed, read the fine print, try to be proactive in avoiding agreeing to Arbitration, and support legislative efforts to ban forced Arbitration.

Can Your Personal Cell Phone Records Be Subpoenaed in a Civil Lawsuit? Are Blake Lively’s Subpoenas Legal?

by Leave a Comment

The Blake Lively versus Justin Baldoni Litigation is teaching lessons about the procedures involved in litigating a civil case in Federal Court. The latest lesson is on Subpoenas and, more specifically, the procedures to request and oppose the request of “private” Cell Phone records.

Can Your ”Private” Cell Phone Records be Subpoenaed in a Civil Case?

Short answer, Yes, but subject to your ability to object.

After a Lawsuit is filed, each side can conduct Discovery to learn all of the facts and obtain all relevant documents to prepare the case for trial.

The permitted scope of Discovery is broad and allows the parties to obtain any non-privileged information that is relevant to their claim or defense. Nevertheless, the Judge can limit Discovery if it is overly broad or unfairly burdensome.

One of the tools that is used in Discovery is a Subpoena, which compels the testimony of someone or the production of relevant documents.

It is common for cell phone records to be Subpoenaed to obtain communications that are relevant to the case. Since both Lively and Baldoni cited texts in their lawsuits against each other, texts and other communications are, no doubt, relevant in their case.

Recently, Lively’s lawyers issued subpoenas on many people, some of whom are not parties to the litigation, seeking cell phone records for a two and a half year period including all texts and even all location information.

Baldoni’s lawyers claim that the subpoenas are an improper “fishing expedition.” They argue that the Subpoenas are overly broad and seek personal information that is not relevant to the case.

Can the Subpoenaed Person or the Opposing Lawyer Object to the Subpoena?

A Subpoena is an Order from the Court, so it cannot be just ignored.

However, either the person Subpoenaed or the opposing lawyer can object to the Subpoena by filing a Motion to Quash or Modify the Subpoena. The Motion can seek to strike or modify the Subpoena if it fails to allow a reasonable time to comply, requires production of privileged or protected matters or subjects the person to undue burden.

In the Lively/Baldoni case, I expect that both Baldoni’s lawyers and the lawyers for the Subpoenaed individuals will file Motions to Quash seeking to strike or modify the Subpoenas.

In the end, I predict that the Judge will limit the Subpoenas to only the communications between the relevant people and during the relevant time period. The Judge may even limit the Subpoenas to communications relevant to the issues in the case rather than requiring the production of all personal communications.

Lesson for You Regarding “Private” Cell Phone Communications

The Subpoena dispute in the Lively/Baldoni case teaches a valuable lesson to anyone who might be involved in an legal matter like a Divorce or Child Custody case, a business dispute or other matter that may lead to Court Proceedings.

Your opponent will have the ability to try to Subpoena your “private” Cell Phone records if they may contain relevant information. In addition, if you delete communications from your phone, that destruction of evidence, if uncovered, could be used against you in any litigation.

Nevertheless, if you ever receive a Subpoena, you are now aware of your rights to file a Motion to strike it or modify its scope.

Tim Rayne is a Personal Injury Lawyer with MacElree Harvey, Ltd. For 30 years, Tim has been helping accident victims understand their legal rights and receive fair compensation from insurance companies. You can contact Tim Rayne at 610-840-0124 or trayne@macelree.com or check out his website at www.TimRayneLaw.com.

Why Would a Personal Injury Lawyer Like Being Called an “Ambulance Chaser”?

by Leave a Comment

”Ambulance Chaser” seems like the ultimate insult for a Personal Injury Lawyer. Desperate for business, the Lawyer chases ambulances to find injured clients.

So, as a Personal Injury Lawyer, why would I enjoy being called an “Ambulance Chaser”?

I recently had an accident case that I handled along with co-counsel from another firm. The case involve negligent and arguably reckless conduct of a Defendant that resulted in the death of our client who was the mother of two young children.

When we made a legal claim against the Defendant, we found out that, unfortunately, he did not have enough insurance to compensate the children and family for our client’s tragic death. Although the insurance company wanted to settle and pay its insurance policy limits, we refused, insisting that any settlement would require a contribution from the personal assets of the Defendant.

It’s rare to be able to collect more than the insurance policy limits. Most of the time the Defendant will not have assets that can be pursued, or is married or holds assets jointly with others so that they cannot be collected at the end of a civil lawsuit.

In this case, however, my co-counsel and I refused to settle without a personal contribution from the Defendant. We pressed on with the lawsuit by hiring experts and preparing for trial.

Ultimately, the Defendant caved just a few weeks before trial. The Defendant produced proof of his limited assets and income and agreed to make a substantial personal contribution to be added to the policy limits of his insurance company.

When the Defendant paid his portion of the settlement, thinking he was clever or funny he wrote in the Memo section of his check “Ambulance Chaser.”

Screenshot

When I saw the check and the term “Ambulance Chaser”, I was amused not annoyed. The Defendant was so delusional that he saw himself as the victim in this case, and the attorneys as the villains. His negligent and reckless conduct killed our client and took a mother away from her children, but in his twisted mind, we were the bad guys.

In the end, I considered the “Ambulance Chaser” jab as badge of honor rather than an insult. If fighting for an innocent victim and her family and holding a Defendant personally accountable is being an “Ambulance Chaser”, then I’ll own that title any day of the week.

Tim Rayne is a Personal Injury Lawyer with the Pennsylvania law firm MacElree Harvey, Ltd. For nearly 30 years, Tim Rayne has been helping accident victims receive fair treatment from insurance companies. Tim has law offices in Kennett Square and West Chester Pennsylvania. Tim can be reached at 610-840-0124 or trayne@macelree.com or you can check out his website at www.TimRayneLaw.com.

Limited Tort is Bad – Full Tort is Good

by Leave a Comment

There is no other way to say it – Limited Tort is Bad and Full Tort is Good.

Limited Tort artificially eliminates important legal rights for you and your family after a Car Accident, while Full Tort preserves those rights.

But let’s start at the beginning. What in the world is Limited Tort and Full Tort anyway ?

Limited Tort – A Legislative Tool to Limit Lawsuits and Reduce Insurance Costs

In the mid 1980s, the Pennsylvania legislature enacted the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Responsibility Law (MVFRL) which created the Full Tort versus Limited Tort Election.

The stated purpose of the MVFRL was to reduce insurance costs and reduce litigation. Policy holders were given a choice to make when they bought car insurance, whether they wanted Full Tort or Limited Tort.

Limited Tort Jeopardizes Rights to Compensation While Full Tort Protects those Rights

Full Tort was more expensive coverage, but protected an injured person’s full legal rights to seek compensation after being injured in a car accident.

Limited Tort offered a premium discount, but in exchange for the savings, a policy holder waived the right to bring a lawsuit for non-economic damages, like pain and suffering, after being injured in a car accident cause by someone else. Unless someone covered by Limited Tort suffered a “serious injury” defined as “death, serious and permanent disfigurement or serious impairment of body function”, the right to non-economic damage compensation was waived.

The MVFRL seems to have a legitimate purpose but, in reality, people who choose Limited Tort and then are injured in car accidents, are almost universally disappointed by their choice because they have jeopardized important legal rights to compensation.

“But I’m Not the Suing Type Anyway….”

Although almost everyone believes that “they are not the suing type“, when people are actually injured in a car accident, they change their tune and realize that it is appropriate for the law to allow monetary compensation for victims, including compensation for non-economic damages, like pain and suffering. Once you are actually involved in a car collision that causes injuries, you realize that 99.9% of all personal injury claims are not “frivolous“ but, instead, the victim has suffered painful and disabling injuries innocently and deserves to have the defendant pay for all of the harm, not part of it.

The Problem with Limited Tort

The problem with Limited Tort is that it takes away those important legal rights and the premium savings does not justify the loss of those important rights.

Almost Everyone Who Has Limited Tort and then Has a Car Accident Regrets the Choice

During my 30 year career as a Car Accident and Personal Injury Lawyer, I have had to advise hundreds of potential Car Accident clients of the problem with their Limited Tort election. Nearly every one has regretted the minimal cost saving choice and has been bitterly disappointed with his or her car insurance agent for allowing the Limited Tort election. Once they truly comprehend the negative consequences of the choice of Limited Tort, they wish that they had preserved their full legal rights with Full Tort.

So, please check your Car Insurance Policy and make sure that you have Full Tort, not Limited Tort!