Pennsylvania Injury Law Report : Pennsylvania Personal Injury Lawyer & Attorney : Stuart Carpey Law Firm : Auto Accidents & Product Liability : Pennsylvania Injury Law Report

I previously wrote about the two Luzerne County judges, Mark A. Ciavarella and Michael T. Conahan who pleaded guilty in February to sentencing juveniles to secure detention facilities from which they received $2.6 million in kickbacks. Others associated with these events have also been charged.

The wrongdoings of the judges centered on the following:

• neither the juveniles nor their families were advised by the judges of their right to counsel,
• guilty pleas were accepted without explaining what the minors were charged with,
• and parents’ wages were garnished to pay for the costs of detention;
• the judges summarily and routinely ordered that youths who had committed relatively minor offenses be sent to residential youth detention facilities.

The detention centers, with the two judges’ assistance, received more than $30 million in county contracts. 

The story deserves and has received national attention.  A recent article in the The American Bar Association Journal takes the position that lawyers who regularly entered the two judges' courtrooms had an obligation to "blow the whistle" on the judges, whether or not the lawyers represented any of the juveniles who appeared before Ciavarella or Conahan.

In fact, it was uniformly true that the juveniles were never represented by counsel. And that is one of the lessons from the Luzerne County fiasco. Litigants need attorneys before they even think about entering a courtroom. 

In the insurance claims area, it is sometimes possible to handle a claim on your own without the help of a lawyer. For instance, in small property damage and small personal injury claims you may not need a lawyer. But you can bet that the insurance company will do its best to take advantage of you. The insurance company is in the profit making business. They are not around to help you with your claim.

I preach the following in any Pennsylvania accident or injury case: before you sign any forms, or before you give the insurance company a statement, consult with a qualified personal injury lawyer. That does not necessarily mean hire a personal injury lawyer. That means consult with one and then make an educated decision on how to deal with the insurance company.

The court system is not designed to protect the individual. You must be prepared to look out for your own interests.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

One of the strangest events in tennis occurred Sunday night. Serena Williams, the defending champion, was playing Kim Clijsters in the semi final of the US open. Clijsters, 18 months since giving birth to her first child, was ahead one set in the best out of three match, and Williams was serving at 5-6, 15-30. In other words, Clijsters was two points away from winning the match. Williams is ranked number 2 in the world and was ranked number 2 in the tournament. Clijsters was unranked and not expected to get as far as she did. (She ended up winning the tournament the next day).

At a critical point in the match, a lineswoman called a foot fault on Williams on her second serve, making the score at 15-40 and giving Clijsters match point. Williams then commenced a profanity laced tirade at the lineswoman, and appeared to threaten the lineswoman. The chair umpire stopped the match, the head of the tournament was called onto the court and ruled that Williams would incur a point penalty thereby giving Clijsters the match. The fact that Williams was given a point penalty in and of itself was not the death knell of her chances of winning the match; rather it was the timing of the point penalty, on match point, that ended her chances. 

Did Serena foot fault? Instant replay did not provide a good enough angle for anybody to determine if the lineswoman made the correct call or not. Should the lineswoman have called a foot fault at such a crucial point in the match? Really, that’s not the issue. She was just making a call, which was what her job required. She might have been wrong. But it was Williams’ reaction to the call that cost her the match. She could have “challenged” the call, the chair umpire would have reviewed the replay tape and would have made a call on the foot fault herself. At worst, Williams would have been down match point. She would have still been in the match. (Williams has since been fined $10,000 and may face stiffer penalties according to the USTA).

The lesson here is that once you put yourself in the arena, whether it’s center court at Arthur Ashe Stadium, or in front of a jury, you subject yourself to “calls” (known at trial as “rulings”) that are sometimes unfair and sometimes flat out wrong. Judges make mistakes. Court rulings are simply part of the risk. The jury could get your case wrong, not find your testimony or that of your witnesses believable, or not award you enough compensation for your injuries; again, that is part of the risk of going to trial.

Serena Williams’ tirade is also a lesson to litigants. Testifying at a deposition or at trial is stressful. But, simply put, it is not in your best interest to lose your composure at a deposition or at trial. No matter how much we prepare you for the expected or the unexpected in advance of your deposition or trial, reliving the events which caused you injury and seeing the person who caused your pain is an emotional experience that must be anticipated and dealt with. You must put you best game face on and accept the consequences.

This is also a teaching point about the dangers of social media to personal injury litigants.  I've written before about the fact that insurance companies are trolling social media sites like Facebook to find images (photos/videos) of litigants which might minimize the insurance company's exposure in personal injury cases. Serena Williams misadventure at the US Open will be forever on Youtube. Be careful about what you put on Facebook.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Chrysler has now agreed to cover defective product liability claims that occur after the company came out of bankruptcy protection as of June 10, 2009. Still, approximately 300 claims ending before the company emerged from bankruptcy protection will not be covered. 

In a press release dated August 28, 2009, the New Chrysler's senior Vice President,  John Bozzella, stated "while Chrysler still faces challenges, we are confident that the future viability of the company will not be threatened if we accept these claims. We want our customers to feel comfortable and confident buying, driving, and enjoying one of our vehicles."

In testimony involving the bankruptcy hearing for Chrysler in May 2009, CEO Bob Nardelli confirmed injured consumers with liability claims against Chrysler would have to proceed against a bankrupt Old Chrysler, meaning those injured individuals  would have no recourse for their personal injury claims against Chrysler.

The testimony of Nardelli in front of the bankruptcy court last May is astounding. Here's what Mr. Nardelli said at page 422 of the actual transcript.

The Court: Sir, you have millions of customers who own vehicles right now made by Chrysler. And when these customers find out their vehicles may be worth less because if there is a problem with the vehicle, or an injury, something that is not covered by the warranty which is being assumed, is that going to make those people less likely to buy cars when they want to buy a new car from NewCo?

Nardelli: ...customers might be willing to take the risk if it had a very attracive price on it.

The Court: Okay. So if Chrysler isn't willing to stand behind-and by that I mean NewCo-injured customers and people who have things that are not covered by the warranty on the old cars, doesn't that send a signal to the market that the cars from NewCo you should also avoid?

Nardelli and the boys at New Chrysler finally got it. Consumer groups had been pushing the FTC to put a skull and crossbones sticker on any used Chrysler car to warn consumers about problematic Chrysler vehicles . That couldn't have helped new car sales for the New Chrysler. In other words, any connection between "Chrysler"and "safety" would have been destroyed. Chrysler's team's first instinct was to cut out all prior liability claims. When the bankruptcy court and public opinion made it clear that the New Chrysler's name would be irreparably damaged if the company did not pick up prior liability claims in effect before the bankruptcy, the New Chrysler people changed their tune. But let's be clear; it wasn't because they felt any moral responsibility to do so.

Chrysler's decision follows that of GM's, who, under pressure from state attorneys general, agreed to assume responsibility for product liability claims caused by  vehicle defects after the auto maker emerges from bankruptcy protection. GM's decision was made in late June 2009.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link