The legal concept of Joint and Several Liability was designed to protect victims and require those responsible for injuries to compensate those victims. The concept simply required that the victim be fully compensated for the damages sustained. When there were multiple at-fault parties, the victim could collect full damages from any one party and that party could seek reimbursement from the other at-fault parties. This concept, which I have described in its most elementary form, was developed by legal scholars throughout the United States and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania over the past two hundred years. Nearly every legal scholar today firmly believes that it has served the people of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania quite well.
Despite the opinions of nearly every legal scholar, the Pennsylvania Legislature and Senate decided, most likely under pressure from big insurance, to eradicate Joint and Several Liability. Governor Corbett, as one of his first acts, signed Senate Bill 1131 (Act No. 17) into law on June 28, 2011, dramatically changing Pennsylvania law with the stroke of a pen. What is the future for those injured in Pennsylvania when there are multiple at-fault parties? Some will face financial ruin. In many instances, the damage expenses, which would have been recovered from the at-fault parties, will now be passed on to all Pennsylvanians, as victims with unpaid medical bills will be forced to seek payment through the Department of Public Welfare. Therefore the expenses, no matter how great, will be passed on to all of the taxpayers. The result is the victim is not fully compensated, (possibly rendered insolvent), and an at-fault party avoids the responsibility of fully compensating the victim, instead passing the responsibility on to all Pennsylvania taxpayers.
Consider the following scenario:
A young girl from a poor family has been assaulted at a daycare center by a repairman called into the center to repair an electrical problem. The daycare center failed to investigate the worker, who was a convicted child molester. The offender assaulted the child. The child’s injuries will force her to undergo medical and psychological care for the rest of her life. The child’s parents sue the daycare center and the repairman/child molester. The daycare center has liability insurance of $100,000.00, while the repairman/child molester is uninsured. The jury awards a verdict of $100,000.00 to compensate the child for the medical expenses and the pain and suffering she has undergone and will undergo in the future. The jury allocated negligence at Ten (10%) Percent against the daycare center and Ninety (90%) Percent against the repairman/child molester. Under the “old Pennsylvania law,” the insurance company for the daycare center would be required to pay the verdict and seek contribution from the repairman/child molester. Under the current law, Act No. 17, the child would collect $10,000.00 from the daycare’s insurance company and the remainder of the verdict would remain uncollected as the repairman/child molester has no insurance and it is unlikely he would have any assets with which to satisfy the verdict. The cost for this child’s medical expenses, past, present and future, will most likely fall upon the taxpayers of Pennsylvania.
In the scenario outlined above, there is very little anyone can do to protect themselves from the inequities of Act No. 17 which has been inappropriately labeled by its supporters as “Fair Share Act.” However, in the area of automobiles and automobile insurance, I would urge everyone to carefully review their automobile insurance policy and, to the extent that they can afford it, increase their liability coverage and purchase underinsured and uninsured motorist coverage in an equal amount. I would also encourage everyone to stack their underinsured and uninsured motorist coverage, which means that the amount of coverage which they actually have would be multiplied by the number of vehicles that they own or, in many situations, are owned in their household.
I would also suggest that all consumers speak with their insurance representatives about the possibility of purchasing an umbrella insurance policy which would provide coverage and include in that policy underinsured and uninsured motorist coverage.
In a society where legislation is driven not by legal scholars by uninformed and misinformed legislators, an individual must avail himself or herself of all available protection.
-- James T. Davis, Esquire
Wednesday, April 4, 2012
Thursday, March 24, 2011
Westboro Baptist and Civil Liability
On March 2, 2011, the United States Supreme Court published its decision in Snyder vs. Phelps. The case itself has been commonly referred to as the Westboro Case and has been championed by some as a landmark decision protecting the First Amendment Rights of all Americans. What’s been lost in the media frenzy surrounding the decision are the facts and circumstances which caused Albert Snyder to file suite against Fred W. Phelps, Sr., Phelps’relatives and the church he founded, Westboro Baptist.
Lance Corporal Matthew Snyder died in Iraq in 2006. His father, Albert, selected the catholic church in Snyder’s hometown of Westminster, Maryland as the site for his son’s funeral. Fred Phelps and several of his relatives came to Westminster seeing an opportunity to “protest”what they believe to be seriously wrong with America.This was nothing new for Phelps assimilar protests had been conducted at military funerals throughout the United States. Typically,the picketers would display such signs as “Thank God for Dead Soldiers,” “America is Doomed,”“Priest Rape Boys,” “You’re Going to Hell.” Following the funeral, members of the Westboro Church allegedly posted online the following “epic,” “God blessed you Mr. and Mrs. Snyder,with a resource and his name was Matthew. He was an arrow in your quiver: and thanks to God for the comfort the child could bring you, you had a DUTY to prepare that child to serve the LORD his GOD - - PERIOD! YOU DID just the opposite - - you raised him for the devil.”
Albert Snyder brought suit against Phelps, his relatives and Westboro alleging, among other “torts”, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress. The jury awarded Snyder $2.9 million dollars in compensatory damages and $8 million dollars in punitive damages. Subsequently, the punitive damage award was reduced by the District Court to $2.1 million dollars. Phelps appealed to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals which reversed the jury’s decision. On March 2, 2011, the Supreme Court, affirmed the decision of the Fourth Circuit. The Supreme Court decision was written by Chief Justice John Roberts, considered to be one of the finest jurist of our time. Justice Roberts concluded that “because this nation has chosen to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to insure that public debate is not stifled, Westboro must be shielded from tort liability for its picketing in this case.” Certainly, the First Amendment must be protected but that protection should not extended in such a degree that a person who intentionally inflicts emotional distress upon another will not be held accountable and responsible through our civil justice system. The injured party must have the absolute right to seek compensation through our civil justice system. Anyone who intentionally, negligently or recklessly causes injury must be held accountable in our civil justice system, otherwise we would be relegated to barbaric reactions to address grievances. The jury held Fred Phelps and Westboro accountable and the First Amendment should not relieve them of their accountability.
Justice Samuel Alito, in his well reasoned dissenting opinion wrote, “our profound national commitment to free and open debate is not a license for the vicious verbal assault that occurred in this case”. Judge Alito noted that Albert Snyder is not a public figure, the First Amendment protection should not shield a person from responsibility when that person inflicts “severe emotional injury on private persons at times of intense emotional sensitivity by launching such a vicious verbal attack that made no contribution to public debate.” “ To protect against such injury, most jurisdictions permit recovery in tort for the intentional infliction of emotional distress”. This is what occurred in the original jury trial.
Under the guise of First Amendment protection, what occurred is an assault on our civil justice system. The right to have one’s claims addressed by a jury in a proper civil proceeding is a paramount right in our free society. To shield one from responsibility and prohibit accountability for such outrageous conduct strikes at the heart of our civil justice system. Justice Alito had it right, that if the Plaintiff (Snyder) establishes that Defendant’s conduct was “so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, utterly intolerable in a civilized community,” then the Defendants (Phelps and Westboro) must be responsible.
Submitted by:
James T. Davis, Esquire
Davis & Davis
Lance Corporal Matthew Snyder died in Iraq in 2006. His father, Albert, selected the catholic church in Snyder’s hometown of Westminster, Maryland as the site for his son’s funeral. Fred Phelps and several of his relatives came to Westminster seeing an opportunity to “protest”what they believe to be seriously wrong with America.This was nothing new for Phelps assimilar protests had been conducted at military funerals throughout the United States. Typically,the picketers would display such signs as “Thank God for Dead Soldiers,” “America is Doomed,”“Priest Rape Boys,” “You’re Going to Hell.” Following the funeral, members of the Westboro Church allegedly posted online the following “epic,” “God blessed you Mr. and Mrs. Snyder,with a resource and his name was Matthew. He was an arrow in your quiver: and thanks to God for the comfort the child could bring you, you had a DUTY to prepare that child to serve the LORD his GOD - - PERIOD! YOU DID just the opposite - - you raised him for the devil.”
Albert Snyder brought suit against Phelps, his relatives and Westboro alleging, among other “torts”, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress. The jury awarded Snyder $2.9 million dollars in compensatory damages and $8 million dollars in punitive damages. Subsequently, the punitive damage award was reduced by the District Court to $2.1 million dollars. Phelps appealed to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals which reversed the jury’s decision. On March 2, 2011, the Supreme Court, affirmed the decision of the Fourth Circuit. The Supreme Court decision was written by Chief Justice John Roberts, considered to be one of the finest jurist of our time. Justice Roberts concluded that “because this nation has chosen to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to insure that public debate is not stifled, Westboro must be shielded from tort liability for its picketing in this case.” Certainly, the First Amendment must be protected but that protection should not extended in such a degree that a person who intentionally inflicts emotional distress upon another will not be held accountable and responsible through our civil justice system. The injured party must have the absolute right to seek compensation through our civil justice system. Anyone who intentionally, negligently or recklessly causes injury must be held accountable in our civil justice system, otherwise we would be relegated to barbaric reactions to address grievances. The jury held Fred Phelps and Westboro accountable and the First Amendment should not relieve them of their accountability.
Justice Samuel Alito, in his well reasoned dissenting opinion wrote, “our profound national commitment to free and open debate is not a license for the vicious verbal assault that occurred in this case”. Judge Alito noted that Albert Snyder is not a public figure, the First Amendment protection should not shield a person from responsibility when that person inflicts “severe emotional injury on private persons at times of intense emotional sensitivity by launching such a vicious verbal attack that made no contribution to public debate.” “ To protect against such injury, most jurisdictions permit recovery in tort for the intentional infliction of emotional distress”. This is what occurred in the original jury trial.
Under the guise of First Amendment protection, what occurred is an assault on our civil justice system. The right to have one’s claims addressed by a jury in a proper civil proceeding is a paramount right in our free society. To shield one from responsibility and prohibit accountability for such outrageous conduct strikes at the heart of our civil justice system. Justice Alito had it right, that if the Plaintiff (Snyder) establishes that Defendant’s conduct was “so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, utterly intolerable in a civilized community,” then the Defendants (Phelps and Westboro) must be responsible.
Submitted by:
James T. Davis, Esquire
Davis & Davis
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
Minimum Insurance Coverage
In 1974, the average home cost $34,900, the average rent was $185, gasoline was .55¢ per gallon and the average new car cost $3,750. This was the year Richard Nixon resigned the presidency in the midst of the Watergate Scandal and was later pardoned by his successor, Gerald Ford. A 55 mile per hour speed limit was imposed throughout the country to preserve gas and the Sears Tower in Chicago became the world’s tallest building. This was also the year that legislation was passed in Pennsylvania to establish minimum motor vehicle insurance limits of $15,000 for an injured person and $5,000 for property damage. In other words, if you suffer an injury as a result of the negligence of a driver carrying the legal minimum insurance coverage, the most that you could recover from the insurance carrier is $15,000 for your injuries and $5,000 for damage to your car. Thirty seven years have passed and, as we enter 2011, the average cost of a home is $213,000, the average price of a car is $28,400, the average rent is $545, a gallon of gasoline is $3.15, yet Pennsylvania has never raised the minimum insurance coverage! We need to catch up with modern times and the rest of the nation.
The problem is obvious. The $5,000 property damage minimum may cover the damage in a mere fender bender but the cost to repair or replace a new vehicle will almost always exceed that amount. As for medical and related expenses incurred by a person injured in a motor vehicle collision, the sum of $15,000 cannot begin to compensate a seriously injured person who incurs always rising medical expenses, wage loss and other similar losses.
It is obvious that when a person sustains a catastrophic injury and the responsible party has the legal minimum coverage, the injured person will not be fairly compensated for his or her loses. In many cases, it will be the taxpayers that ultimately “foot the bill” for the required medical care through Medicare or Medicaid. In order to alleviate these problems, Pennsylvania Senate Bill No. 1460 has been introduced. This Bill would raise the minimum insurance limits from $15,000 to $30,000 for one person and from $30,000 to $60,000 for multiple persons injured in the same automobile collision. It will also raise the property damage limit from $5,000 to $10,000. These are modest increases, but even they are long overdue.
Unfortunately, like so many pieces of legislation in Pennsylvania, it remains “caught in Committee”. I am not certain what “caught in Committee” means, but it is obvious that once legislation gets “caught” it rarely, if ever, gets “released”.
With one party now controlling the House of Representatives, Senate and Executive (Governor), the bipartisan bickering is no longer an excuse for continued legislative inaction. The Pennsylvania legislative process is the most expensive in the nation in cost to the public. Despite this, there always seems to be an impasse as legislation remains “caught in Committee” and is never voted on. Could it be the Legislators do not want to be faced with the responsibility of voting? Could it be it is about one party winning and one party losing and the interest of the public gets lost in the contest? Could it be that “caught in Committee” is merely an excuse for inaction?
The main duty of elected Legislators is to serve the public and not to serve a particular political party by engaging in political gamesmanship. Although it is already long overdue, the time has come for the Legislators to pass Senate Bill No. 1460 which will unquestionably benefit all consumers. If the Legislators are unwilling to take this action, they should explain why the interest of the insurance companies are more important to them than the protection of their constituents.
James T. Davis, Esquire
jdavis@davisanddavislaw.com
The problem is obvious. The $5,000 property damage minimum may cover the damage in a mere fender bender but the cost to repair or replace a new vehicle will almost always exceed that amount. As for medical and related expenses incurred by a person injured in a motor vehicle collision, the sum of $15,000 cannot begin to compensate a seriously injured person who incurs always rising medical expenses, wage loss and other similar losses.
It is obvious that when a person sustains a catastrophic injury and the responsible party has the legal minimum coverage, the injured person will not be fairly compensated for his or her loses. In many cases, it will be the taxpayers that ultimately “foot the bill” for the required medical care through Medicare or Medicaid. In order to alleviate these problems, Pennsylvania Senate Bill No. 1460 has been introduced. This Bill would raise the minimum insurance limits from $15,000 to $30,000 for one person and from $30,000 to $60,000 for multiple persons injured in the same automobile collision. It will also raise the property damage limit from $5,000 to $10,000. These are modest increases, but even they are long overdue.
Unfortunately, like so many pieces of legislation in Pennsylvania, it remains “caught in Committee”. I am not certain what “caught in Committee” means, but it is obvious that once legislation gets “caught” it rarely, if ever, gets “released”.
With one party now controlling the House of Representatives, Senate and Executive (Governor), the bipartisan bickering is no longer an excuse for continued legislative inaction. The Pennsylvania legislative process is the most expensive in the nation in cost to the public. Despite this, there always seems to be an impasse as legislation remains “caught in Committee” and is never voted on. Could it be the Legislators do not want to be faced with the responsibility of voting? Could it be it is about one party winning and one party losing and the interest of the public gets lost in the contest? Could it be that “caught in Committee” is merely an excuse for inaction?
The main duty of elected Legislators is to serve the public and not to serve a particular political party by engaging in political gamesmanship. Although it is already long overdue, the time has come for the Legislators to pass Senate Bill No. 1460 which will unquestionably benefit all consumers. If the Legislators are unwilling to take this action, they should explain why the interest of the insurance companies are more important to them than the protection of their constituents.
James T. Davis, Esquire
jdavis@davisanddavislaw.com
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
House Bill No. 2246
Imagine that you have been selected for Jury Duty and you are called upon to decide a personal injury case. The plaintiff, a young woman, was severely injured when a car driven by an intoxicated young man ignored a steady red light and crashed into her vehicle. The young plaintiff is seeking money damages for the injuries she claims were caused by the intoxicated defendant. If you reside in our Commonwealth, you will be asked to make a decision on the amount of money damages, if any, that should be awarded to the young victim. The intoxicated driver, although this will not be revealed to you, will be represented by an attorney hired through his insurance company and any award against him will, in nearly all instances, be paid by his insurance company. You, as a juror, will hear the evidence presented by "both sides" and at the conclusion of the trial will be asked to decide the case by awarding money damages to the plaintiff. At no time will anyone, plaintiff’s lawyer, defendant’s lawyer or judge be permitted to speak to you about the amount of money damages. You will be asked to determine the amount of money damages in the abstract and may, as many suggest, be relegated to a blind guess. Although you will be asked to make such a decision, no witness will have testified as to the value or lack of value in the plaintiff’s claims, including her claims for pain and suffering.
In cases involving automobile collisions, thirty-seven states and the District of Columbia permit the attorneys to argue and suggest monetary damages. Unfortunately, Pennsylvania remains in the minority.
The Senate of Pennsylvania has the opportunity to remedy this problem. House Bill No. 2246 permits argument on the amount of damages in motor vehicle crash cases. This legislation would bring Pennsylvania in line with the overwhelming majority of states and would certainly help to prevent unfair, unreasonable and "blind guess" verdicts. The legislation does not in any way alter Pennsylvania’s rules of evidence or any other legislation applicable to the trial of a motor vehicle injury case. Most observers, including attorneys who represent the plaintiffs as well as the defendants through the insurance carriers, believe that House Bill No. 2246 would right many wrongs and result in fairer verdicts thereby benefitting both parties involved in the litigation. Most defense lawyers believe that House Bill No. 2246 will help to prevent excessive verdicts, or what many call runaway verdicts, while plaintiffs attorneys believe that the legislation will also prevent the inadequate or unfair verdict when evidence may warrant a different result.
Unfortunately, we in Pennsylvania know all too well the sometimes cumbersome nature of the legislative process. Perhaps House Bill No. 2246 is different. The Bill passed the Transportation Committee on an 8 to 2, largely bipartisan, vote. It also passed the House with relative ease receiving support from both sides of the aisle. Perhaps the Pennsylvania Senate will follow suit. In September the Senate will be asked to vote on this legislation. Many if not all legal scholars support the passage of this legislation. Should the Senate act favorably, most observers believe that Governor Rendell will promptly sign House Bill No. 2246 and help bring clarity and guidance in the resolution of motor vehicle injury claims.
Submitted by:
James T. Davis, Esquire
jdavis@davisanddavislaw.com
In cases involving automobile collisions, thirty-seven states and the District of Columbia permit the attorneys to argue and suggest monetary damages. Unfortunately, Pennsylvania remains in the minority.
The Senate of Pennsylvania has the opportunity to remedy this problem. House Bill No. 2246 permits argument on the amount of damages in motor vehicle crash cases. This legislation would bring Pennsylvania in line with the overwhelming majority of states and would certainly help to prevent unfair, unreasonable and "blind guess" verdicts. The legislation does not in any way alter Pennsylvania’s rules of evidence or any other legislation applicable to the trial of a motor vehicle injury case. Most observers, including attorneys who represent the plaintiffs as well as the defendants through the insurance carriers, believe that House Bill No. 2246 would right many wrongs and result in fairer verdicts thereby benefitting both parties involved in the litigation. Most defense lawyers believe that House Bill No. 2246 will help to prevent excessive verdicts, or what many call runaway verdicts, while plaintiffs attorneys believe that the legislation will also prevent the inadequate or unfair verdict when evidence may warrant a different result.
Unfortunately, we in Pennsylvania know all too well the sometimes cumbersome nature of the legislative process. Perhaps House Bill No. 2246 is different. The Bill passed the Transportation Committee on an 8 to 2, largely bipartisan, vote. It also passed the House with relative ease receiving support from both sides of the aisle. Perhaps the Pennsylvania Senate will follow suit. In September the Senate will be asked to vote on this legislation. Many if not all legal scholars support the passage of this legislation. Should the Senate act favorably, most observers believe that Governor Rendell will promptly sign House Bill No. 2246 and help bring clarity and guidance in the resolution of motor vehicle injury claims.
Submitted by:
James T. Davis, Esquire
jdavis@davisanddavislaw.com
Monday, February 22, 2010
Civil Liability and the Drunk Driver
Driving while under the influence of alcohol or "drunk driving" is strictly prohibited by the criminal statutes of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. A person convicted of "drunk driving" may be sentenced to prison for up to five (5) years. Other penalties, including operator license suspension, out patient and in patient treatment, and the requirement for a motor vehicle interlock device may also be imposed depending on the number of prior convictions, the amount of alcohol in the blood, whether there was an automobile collision and whether someone was injured or killed. Much has been written about the criminal penalties for drunk driving and it seems that the publicity and discussion stops there.
What of the civil liability that might be imposed on a drunk driver who, while under the influence, causes a collision resulting in injury or death to an innocent person? What of the civil liability for the tavern owner when an employee has served alcohol to a visibly intoxicated person or to a minor who is unlawfully obtaining alcohol at the establishment? What of the civil liability for the individual, commonly known as the social host, who provides alcohol to a visibly intoxicated guest or a minor?
The drunk driver who causes injury or death is subject to civil liability for the pain, suffering, inconvenience, medical expenses and wage loss which the negligent act has caused and, in addition, may be subject to punitive damages, which are damages designed to punish one’s outrageous conduct. Although the drunk driver’s automobile insurance carrier may provide protection, that protection may be insufficient to compensate the injured party. However, the insurance contract will not protect against punitive damages. In addition, a victim of a motor vehicle collision with a drunk driver who has elected limited tort which, in this writer’s opinion is a serious mistake, will be treated as if full tort had been elected.
Although Pennsylvania courts have long recognized that a liquor licensee (tavern owner) may be liable for injuries or death cause by an intoxicated driver who was served alcoholic beverages while visibly intoxicated, the courts have yet to recognize social host liability for a similar event. In other words, the homeowner who serves alcohol to a visibly intoxicated person will not be held liable, at least at this point in time, for the injuries caused by the intoxicated person. Pennsylvania courts have recognized social host liability when an adult social host provides alcoholic beverages to a minor, particularly if that minor is visibly intoxicated. The courts have yet to extend this social host liability when the social host is a minor who has provided alcohol to another minor.
Whether the legislature will, in an effort to bring greater restraint and responsibility to the social host, adopt legislation which will impose additional liability on the social host remains to be seen. However, it is likely that these issues will be revisited by Pennsylvania’s Appellate Courts and, as in other states, the Appellate Courts may extend the social host liability to the intoxicated guest as well as the minor guest.
The message is clear to the driver, do not drive drunk for you not only risk prison but also complete financial disaster; to the social host, do not provide alcohol to minors or to an intoxicated person; and, of course, to the tavern owner, do not permit a minor to obtain alcohol in your establishment and never serve the intoxicated patron. A further word of advice to the tavern owner, purchase liquor liability insurance as it may be impractical to constantly police the patrons being served at your establishment.
Submitted by:
James T. Davis, Esquire
What of the civil liability that might be imposed on a drunk driver who, while under the influence, causes a collision resulting in injury or death to an innocent person? What of the civil liability for the tavern owner when an employee has served alcohol to a visibly intoxicated person or to a minor who is unlawfully obtaining alcohol at the establishment? What of the civil liability for the individual, commonly known as the social host, who provides alcohol to a visibly intoxicated guest or a minor?
The drunk driver who causes injury or death is subject to civil liability for the pain, suffering, inconvenience, medical expenses and wage loss which the negligent act has caused and, in addition, may be subject to punitive damages, which are damages designed to punish one’s outrageous conduct. Although the drunk driver’s automobile insurance carrier may provide protection, that protection may be insufficient to compensate the injured party. However, the insurance contract will not protect against punitive damages. In addition, a victim of a motor vehicle collision with a drunk driver who has elected limited tort which, in this writer’s opinion is a serious mistake, will be treated as if full tort had been elected.
Although Pennsylvania courts have long recognized that a liquor licensee (tavern owner) may be liable for injuries or death cause by an intoxicated driver who was served alcoholic beverages while visibly intoxicated, the courts have yet to recognize social host liability for a similar event. In other words, the homeowner who serves alcohol to a visibly intoxicated person will not be held liable, at least at this point in time, for the injuries caused by the intoxicated person. Pennsylvania courts have recognized social host liability when an adult social host provides alcoholic beverages to a minor, particularly if that minor is visibly intoxicated. The courts have yet to extend this social host liability when the social host is a minor who has provided alcohol to another minor.
Whether the legislature will, in an effort to bring greater restraint and responsibility to the social host, adopt legislation which will impose additional liability on the social host remains to be seen. However, it is likely that these issues will be revisited by Pennsylvania’s Appellate Courts and, as in other states, the Appellate Courts may extend the social host liability to the intoxicated guest as well as the minor guest.
The message is clear to the driver, do not drive drunk for you not only risk prison but also complete financial disaster; to the social host, do not provide alcohol to minors or to an intoxicated person; and, of course, to the tavern owner, do not permit a minor to obtain alcohol in your establishment and never serve the intoxicated patron. A further word of advice to the tavern owner, purchase liquor liability insurance as it may be impractical to constantly police the patrons being served at your establishment.
Submitted by:
James T. Davis, Esquire
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Land Banks
One thing for certain, when you sustain an injury, undergo surgery and your leg is placed in an immobilizer, you have more time to read all those books you had been planning on reading. I recently took the opportunity to read Philip Myers, American Rust, a work of fiction that takes place in the Mon Valley. Myers’ description of decaying communities, abandoned factories, deteriorating houses and vacant buildings is far more real than fiction. A drive through many, many communities in Fayette County and in Southwestern Pennsylvania is an eye opener to any visitor. The number of dilapidated homes and abandoned structures increases daily. These abandoned structures may offer sanctuary for drug dealers and criminals and substantially devalue neighboring properties and entire neighborhoods. Business districts are polluted with dilapidated buildings that are unsightly and hazardous. People living in these communities are acutely aware of the problems, but no one is able to offer any real and practical solutions.
Obviously, Fayette County is not the first area of the country to experience economic decline and the resulting deterioration and abandonment of homes, structures and factories. Other communities and other areas of the country have also suffered as the "rust belt" continues to expand both geographically and in severity.
One plausible solution is a Land Bank, a public authority created to manage and possibly develop tax foreclosed properties. Land Banks have been a necessity in many major American cities where property vacancies run as high as Fifteen (15%) Percent. Obviously, vacant and abandoned properties do not produce sufficient tax revenue, if any, and have an extremely negative impact. Most are used for illegal activity and depreciate neighboring properties, further stressing local governments. Residents feel unsafe in their own neighborhoods and are constantly reminded that their homes, their life investments, are being depreciated in value due to the abandoned and deteriorating structures in their communities.
A Land Bank using government funds, grants and charitable contributions can acquire abandoned properties, demolish them and revert the properties back to usable condition. The now vacant land can be transferred to adjoining property owners for yard extensions or garage construction or, if large enough, for owner-occupied home development. The properties will no longer be available for illicit purposes and will certainly help to rid the neighborhood of the criminal activity. In addition, the now usable properties will create reinvestment in the community, revitalize the otherwise blighted neighborhoods and at the least "clean up" the deteriorated business districts. Such action will benefit all levels of government including the local municipality and school district. The removal of public nuisances will assist in crime prevention and the promotion of economic development.
The time for action is now! A summit of government leaders, municipal, county, state and federal along with church leaders, community leaders and business leaders must be held. The primary purpose of the summit would be the development of a County Land Bank with a specific and stated purpose of acquiring dilapidated and abandoned structures. If legislation is needed, state officials must act promptly. The situation is so acute that the typical governmental red tape and bureaucratic haggling cannot be tolerated. The Bank must be established through a unified effort and the work of elimination of blight must begin immediately.
Submitted by:
James T. Davis, Esquire
Obviously, Fayette County is not the first area of the country to experience economic decline and the resulting deterioration and abandonment of homes, structures and factories. Other communities and other areas of the country have also suffered as the "rust belt" continues to expand both geographically and in severity.
One plausible solution is a Land Bank, a public authority created to manage and possibly develop tax foreclosed properties. Land Banks have been a necessity in many major American cities where property vacancies run as high as Fifteen (15%) Percent. Obviously, vacant and abandoned properties do not produce sufficient tax revenue, if any, and have an extremely negative impact. Most are used for illegal activity and depreciate neighboring properties, further stressing local governments. Residents feel unsafe in their own neighborhoods and are constantly reminded that their homes, their life investments, are being depreciated in value due to the abandoned and deteriorating structures in their communities.
A Land Bank using government funds, grants and charitable contributions can acquire abandoned properties, demolish them and revert the properties back to usable condition. The now vacant land can be transferred to adjoining property owners for yard extensions or garage construction or, if large enough, for owner-occupied home development. The properties will no longer be available for illicit purposes and will certainly help to rid the neighborhood of the criminal activity. In addition, the now usable properties will create reinvestment in the community, revitalize the otherwise blighted neighborhoods and at the least "clean up" the deteriorated business districts. Such action will benefit all levels of government including the local municipality and school district. The removal of public nuisances will assist in crime prevention and the promotion of economic development.
The time for action is now! A summit of government leaders, municipal, county, state and federal along with church leaders, community leaders and business leaders must be held. The primary purpose of the summit would be the development of a County Land Bank with a specific and stated purpose of acquiring dilapidated and abandoned structures. If legislation is needed, state officials must act promptly. The situation is so acute that the typical governmental red tape and bureaucratic haggling cannot be tolerated. The Bank must be established through a unified effort and the work of elimination of blight must begin immediately.
Submitted by:
James T. Davis, Esquire
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
The Importance of Seatbelts:
How many times have you opened the morning paper only to learn of another traffic fatality? More often than not, as you read the article, you learn that the victim was an unrestrained passenger or driver. From 1975 through 1996, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), seatbelts saved an estimated 90,425 lives. An estimated 75,000 lives were saved between 2004 and 2008. Each year more than 40,000 Americans are killed in motor vehicle crashes. Some experts estimate that the number could be reduced in half by merely "buckling up". According to NHTSA, the lap-shoulder belt system, if used by drivers and front seat passengers, will reduce the risk of fatality and serious injury by Fifty (50%) Percent. The lap belt shoulder to hip belt protects the internal organs and minimizes the possibility of head contact or excessive neck motion thereby helping to prevent head and neck injuries when crashes occur. Unrestrained drivers are typically thrown against the steering wheels or ejected from the vehicles. Unbelted passengers strike the dashboard or are propelled through the windshield. The likelihood that a passenger or operator will be ejected in a crash is twenty five times greater when unrestrained.
The cost resulting from injuries or fatalities to unrestrained drivers and passengers is astronomical. It is estimated that the cost to Americans resulting from higher insurance premiums, higher medical costs and higher taxes is more than $130 billion dollars annually.
Although it is the law in Pennsylvania that drivers and front seat passengers be restrained, the difficulty in enforcing such a statute is obvious and its impact is at best minimal. Public awareness, particularly among young and inexperienced drivers and front seat passengers, is essential. People must be constantly and repeatedly reminded of the extreme dangers an unrestrained driver or passenger is subjected to. A concerted effort to continue to educate and remind the public of the danger one exposes him or herself to by failing to use the seatbelt is essential. Seatbelts save lives, that is common sense and a statistical certainty! Each of us must remind ourselves of the importance of wearing seatbelts and continually remind all of our loved ones and friends.
Submitted By:
James T. Davis, Esquire
jdavis@davisanddavislaw.com
How many times have you opened the morning paper only to learn of another traffic fatality? More often than not, as you read the article, you learn that the victim was an unrestrained passenger or driver. From 1975 through 1996, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), seatbelts saved an estimated 90,425 lives. An estimated 75,000 lives were saved between 2004 and 2008. Each year more than 40,000 Americans are killed in motor vehicle crashes. Some experts estimate that the number could be reduced in half by merely "buckling up". According to NHTSA, the lap-shoulder belt system, if used by drivers and front seat passengers, will reduce the risk of fatality and serious injury by Fifty (50%) Percent. The lap belt shoulder to hip belt protects the internal organs and minimizes the possibility of head contact or excessive neck motion thereby helping to prevent head and neck injuries when crashes occur. Unrestrained drivers are typically thrown against the steering wheels or ejected from the vehicles. Unbelted passengers strike the dashboard or are propelled through the windshield. The likelihood that a passenger or operator will be ejected in a crash is twenty five times greater when unrestrained.
The cost resulting from injuries or fatalities to unrestrained drivers and passengers is astronomical. It is estimated that the cost to Americans resulting from higher insurance premiums, higher medical costs and higher taxes is more than $130 billion dollars annually.
Although it is the law in Pennsylvania that drivers and front seat passengers be restrained, the difficulty in enforcing such a statute is obvious and its impact is at best minimal. Public awareness, particularly among young and inexperienced drivers and front seat passengers, is essential. People must be constantly and repeatedly reminded of the extreme dangers an unrestrained driver or passenger is subjected to. A concerted effort to continue to educate and remind the public of the danger one exposes him or herself to by failing to use the seatbelt is essential. Seatbelts save lives, that is common sense and a statistical certainty! Each of us must remind ourselves of the importance of wearing seatbelts and continually remind all of our loved ones and friends.
Submitted By:
James T. Davis, Esquire
jdavis@davisanddavislaw.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)