Philadelphia Injury Attorney Blog

Every year during prom season, groups of local teenagers celebrate by flocking to the New Jersey shore and staying at seaside motels. As long as these teenage guests can pay for their rooms, they are welcomed with open arms. But, as parents well know, when teenagers party after their proms, there is a good chance they’ll include alcohol or other intoxicating substances in their party mix. There is also a good chance they’ll get hurt—especially if the motels they are staying in pose safety risks.

The warm months of May and June are not exclusive to prom season. They also mark the beginning of the tourist season at the Jersey shore. It is fair to say that many of the motels on the shore have not been very busy over the cold winter months, and are in need of repair, due to the ravages of storms and winter weather— especially this year, after the devastation wreaked by Hurricane Sandy.

The conjunction of prom season and tourist season is a valid concern for the parents of these shore-bound teenagers. Typically, prom-goers look for the cheapest possible motel deal, and end up staying in places where the quality of maintenance is not up to par, or in accordance with safety codes. As a father and a motel/hotel premise liability lawyer who specializes in balcony and railing falls, I worry—for myself, and for all parents of teenagers.

Every year, victims are left in critical condition, or die, after falling over balconies in seashore motels with defective balcony railings. Just last year, a real estate agent was showing a seashore motel property listed for sale, when he leaned against the railing and fell over backwards, suffering permanent catastrophic injuries. The beachfront motel on the Jersey shore where he fell was said to have had multiple safety violations.

Falls from hotel and motel balconies commonly occur during holidays or post-prom parties, and they are often fueled by intoxicating substances and unusual behavior. Despite the presence of alcohol, however, property owners are responsible for the safety of their premises. A fall from a balcony due to defective railings or deck surfaces can totally decimate a victim’s hopes and dreams, and those responsible must be held accountable. If you, your teenage child, or anyone else in your family, has been injured in this kind of accident, you must act immediately, and seek the counsel of an experienced premises liability lawyer.

The nationally recognized premise hotel/motel liability law firm of Reiff and Bily has well over three decades of experience successfully representing victims of slip and fall and balcony fall accidents. We know what can go wrong, and understand the modes of failure and safety code violations that lead to balcony and railing collapses. We have been recognized by our peers and outside third parties as being among the best and brightest, and have been listed as members the Top 100 Trial Lawyers by National Trial Lawyers.

On Tuesday, March 19, 2013, the United States Supreme Court will hear arguments in a case that has far-reaching implications. This case will be closely watched by pharmaceutical companies, regulators, lawyers, and consumer safety advocates. Mutual Pharmaceutical Company—a manufacturer of numerous generic drugs—has asked the high court to overturn a $21 million dollar jury award to Karen Bartlett, a New Hampshire woman who took Mutual’s generic non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug Sulindac when it was prescribed by her doctor for shoulder pain, in 2004.

The plaintiff, Karen Bartlett, was diagnosed with a rare hypersensitivity reaction associated with the drug (Stevens-Johnson Syndrome toxic epidermal necrolysis), three weeks after she began taking it. Her skin began to peel off, and she was left with burn-like lesions over two-thirds of her body. She spent close to two months in a hospital burn unit, and some of that time was in a medically-induced coma. She has subsequently undergone 13 eye surgeries. She sued Mutual in 2008 for alleged design defects, under New Hampshire law, and was awarded $21 million dollars for injuries. Mutual is now attempting to argue that Federal law bars this claim because the drug had been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. The company also contends that it had no control over the drug’s design or labeling.

As a Pennsylvania product liability and product defect lawyer, I am greatly concerned about the safety implications of defective drugs and medical devices. I believe that the risks of the drug involved in this case outweighed its benefits, thereby making it unreasonably dangerous to others.

There are currently 17 non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) on the market that do not have the high risk of Stevens-Johnson Syndrome toxic epidermal necrolysis associated with Sulindac. Of these, 10 are equally effective, as the lower courts concurred, when Karen Bartlett was awarded $21 million dollars for injuries that will require a lifetime of care.

I do not feel that there should be a difference in legal standards applicable to generic drugs and brand name drugs. All manufacturers must be held responsible for the design and safety of their drugs, at all times. Pharmaceutical manufacturers will always argue that, since the drug or device had been approved by the FDA, the product is safe, and that Federal law preempts state law. However, nothing could be further from the truth.
For this reason, the FDA requires warning labels to be constantly updated, and has recommended that certain drugs and devices be withdrawn from the market for being unsafe, as in the cases of Darvocet, Bextra, DePuy hips, and Sprint Fedilis defibrillator leads. Bextra is another good example of a NSAID that was removed from the market for its high risk of triggering Stevens-Johnson Syndrome.

Suits like Karen’s may be one of the only effective ways that society can police the promulgation and dissemination of new safety information. Jury verdicts on behalf of injured individuals send a message to corporations that manufacturing dangerous products—including unreasonably dangerous drugs—is unacceptable, and that such products should be withdrawn from the market.

In 2009, the Supreme Court of the United States asserted in the famous Wyeth v. Levine case that “state tort suits uncover unknown drug hazards and provide incentives for drug manufacturers to disclose safety risks promptly. They also serve a direct compensatory function that may motivate injured persons to come forward with information.” Failure-to-warn actions, in particular, lend force to the FDA’s premise that manufacturers, not the FDA, bear primary responsibility for their drug labeling, at all times. Thus, the FDA has long maintained that state law offers an additional, and extremely important, layer of consumer protection that complements FDA regulation.

I believe that the safety of consumers must never be trumped by the profitability concerns of corporate America and its powerful lobbyists.

When someone gets injured on another’s property—whether it be a business, public, or residential site—the stakes can be very high, especially when the property owner is deemed negligent and the victim is seriously hurt. A property owner has an obligation to keep the premises in safe condition and free of hazards. But, all too often, balconies and railings are overlooked. Given that falls from balconies are generally quite serious, and often lead to catastrophic injuries, the awards for such premises liability cases can be very high indeed.

Recently, a 25-year old motel guest fell 12 feet from the balcony of a second story motel room, while a guest at the motel. The victim contended that the motel maintained the property in a negligent fashion, and that the railing was dangerously low—in violation of the building code. The defense denied that the victim was a motel guest, and presented expert testimony that his injuries were consistent with a ground-level backwards fall. The defense also argued that the victim’s blood alcohol level was .267 at the time of the accident. The plaintiff presented evidence that his mother had come to the motel the day after the accident, and retrieved his personal belongings—which, he alleged, proved that he was a guest at the motel. The plaintiff admitted that he had been intoxicated at the time, had struggled with alcoholism, and was partly responsible for the fall. However, his attorneys argued that this did not excuse the motel’s non-compliance with the building code.

As a result of the fall, the plaintiff was severely injured. He was diagnosed with four skull fractures and a traumatic brain injury (TBI), and had to be placed in a coma for three weeks to be treated for brain swelling and internal bleeding. He sustained brain tissue death, resulting in traumatic dementia. Though he is able to speak, and can understand and process visual information, he has trouble responding, owing to extreme anxiety. He has difficulty planning, and suffers from problems with memory, concentration, and behavior control.

The victim was awarded an extremely large settlement—38 million dollars—owing to the fact that the owner had failed to correct a serious safety hazard, and to fulfill his duty of care to a hotel guest. It is always a property owner’s obligation to keep his premises in a safe condition.

If you or a loved one has been injured from a slip or fall caused by the inadequate safety of someone else’s property, you should contact a premises liability attorney with specialized expertise and a track record of achieving large settlements in such cases. Moreover, you should do so immediately, in order to preserve vitally important evidence.

Jeffrey Reiff has decades of experience as a premises liability attorney, and is a contributing member of the National Brain Injury Trial Lawyers Association. He has consistently been named one of the Top Attorneys in Pennsylvania by Super Lawyers, and has been recognized by National Trial Lawyers as a member of the Top100 Trial Lawyers. He has also been nominated as one of the Top 100 Attorneys in Pennsylvania.

Each year, auto makers and truck manufacturers proudly promote the latest technological features of their new models, boasting about how they create smoother, more efficient rides, improved comfort, and enhanced entertainment capabilities. But, as we all know, new electronic technology is prone to glitches, and, in a car, this is serious business. When an electronic feature in an automobile fails, the consequences can be deadly.

Recently, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) announced the investigation of stalling or surging engines in nearly 725,000 Ford cars and SUVs. This probe applies to all Ford Escapes, Ford Fusions, Mercury Milans, and Mercury Mariner SUVs manufactured between 2009 and 2011. To attest to the seriousness of the problem, these faulty vehicles are nearly identical to the models Ford and Mercury scrapped in 2010.

It is alleged that these vehicles can be triggered into a “limp home mode,” and suddenly start operating at reduced power. This is a rather dangerous propensity in a car. Yet, despite the fact that the NHTSA and Ford have received almost 1,500 complaints about the problem, these cars have not been recalled.

In addition, Ford has indicated to the NHTSA that vehicles made from June 22, 2009 to October 15, 2009 may have been produced with faulty circuit boards controlling the throttle. The circuit boards in question were supplied by the Delphi Corporation. Ford and Delphi claim that they changed the circuit board manufacturing process after October 15, 2009. And, according to NHTSA and Ford spokespeople, this change solved the problem. But, in truth, it is unlikely that such a serious defect was corrected so definitively.

As these facts suggest, faulty electrical mechanisms in cars are not always addressed in as timely a manner as they should be. And, clearly, if defective cars are not recalled, they can cause serious accidents. When faulty automobile components contribute to an accident, the issue of auto product liability comes into play. Automobile manufacturers can be held accountable for the injuries—or deaths—that result.

Victims and family members of such accidents are eligible to file an auto product liability lawsuit against the car manufacturer in question. Though a lawsuit cannot begin to make up for the trauma and emotional impact of an accident, it can cover the high costs of medical care, rehabilitation, long-term care, lost wages , and—in the case of a death—loss of consortium. Fighting an automobile manufacturer requires an experienced lawyer, with special expertise and a track record of success in handling such cases. The stakes in this kind of lawsuit are high, as auto manufacturers will go to great lengths to deny fault, and impede fair settlement.

The Philadelphia auto product liability and car accident lawyers of Reiff and Bily have over 34 years of experience representing victims and their families who were catastrophically injured or killed as a result of an automobile defect. Our lawyers have been recognized as among the top lawyers in the United States. They are members of the Top 100 Trial Lawyers, and have been noted by their peers to have the highest possible rating in both legal abilities and ethical standards. Reiff and Bily always offers a free, no obligation consultation. Call their toll free number, 1-800-421-9595.

In recent years, our law firm has investigated a number of cases where airbags were deployed with inordinate force, causing more harm than the accidents they were meant to protect against. In other cases, airbags were deployed inadvertently, when there was no accident at all. In yet others, the pressure of an airbag was so extreme that it caused the steering wheel to explode, hurling shrapnel-like fragments into drivers and passengers.

Clearly, a properly designed airbag is meant to protect—not cause injury or death. But, airbags are becoming more and more dangerous. Many of the newer airbag systems have complex, multi-force inflators, and feature sequential inflation, utilizing technology that is potentially deadly.

When an airbag deploys in an overly-aggressive fashion, it intrudes too far into the space of the occupant, at a force and velocity that is extremely dangerous. It can cause injuries far more serious than simple lacerations, contusions, and broken bones. It can cause blindness, brain damage, hearing loss, and permanent disfigurement—even death by decapitation.

A large percentage of airbags today are manufactured and supplied to auto makers by Takata, a major supplier of airbags and seat belts, both nationally and internationally. Recently, both Honda and Takata were sued, after a mother of three, involved in a minor fender bender, died when an airbag exploded in her face, lacerating the left side of her neck, and severing her arteries. Tragically, the young mother bled to death in front of her children.

Honda has recalled millions of vehicles since 2008 because of faulty airbags. The latest recall involves the Pilot crossover vehicle from model years 2009 to 2013, and Odyssey minivans from years 2009 to 2013.

But Honda is not alone. Chrysler recently recalled 919,000 Jeep Grand Cherokee and Jeep Liberty SUVs produced in model years 2002 and 2003. Last July, Hyundai recalled 220,000 Sonata sedans and San Fe SUVs from model years 2007 to 2009. And Ford recently announced a recall of 154,000 Fiesta models. All of these recalls involved defective airbags.

If you have problems with any of these vehicles, you should contact your local dealer immediately. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), which has made the discovery and resolution of airbag problems a top priority, maintains an auto safety hotline, as well. Its number is 888-327-4236.

Defective airbags are among the most commonly cited defective products in suits involving catastrophic injuries and death. But, although there are newer and safer designs available, many manufacturers still continue to put their bottom line ahead of safety considerations.

Our airbag and product defect lawyers understand that safety should never be an option. The lawyers at Reiff and Bily have received the highest possible peer review ratings in legal ability and ethical standards, and have been recognized as the Top 100 Attorneys in Philadelphia and Top Attorneys in the Northeast. We always offer a free, no obligation consultation for those involved in motor vehicle accidents, and for those who have sustained injuries resulting from airbag defects.

On Saturday, February 23rd, a horrific crash occurred during the NASCAR Nationwide Series race at the Daytona International Speedway, when driver Kyle Larson’s 32 race car went airborne, resulting in a 12-car pileup. According to news sources, at least 28 spectators were injured when the car hurtled into the fence, propelling debris through and over the catch-fence that was there to protect the crowd. Fourteen people were sent to area hospitals—two in critical condition. At the time of this writing, the two spectators critically injured spectators remain at the Halifax Health Medical Center.

I was contacted by a reporter the day after the accident. One of the questions he asked was whether or not Daytona International Speedway and its owner, International Speedway Corporation, would be exculpated from liability by the disclaimer found on the back of admission tickets.

The disclaimer states that “the holder of this ticket expressly assumes all risks incident to this event, whether occurring prior to, during, or subsequent to the actual event, and agrees that all participants, sanctioning bodies, and all speedways, agents, officers, or directors of Daytona International Speedway, its affiliates and subsidiaries are hereby released from any and all claims arising from the event, including claims of negligence.”

Having been an amusement park accident and recreational torts injury attorney for the last three decades, I am quite familiar with the way promoters operating sports and amusement businesses will attempt to disclaim liability by means of the statement imprinted on their ticket stubs. Such disclaimers are placed on the back of admission tickets to virtually all ski resorts, hockey arenas, football and baseball stadiums, and amusements venues—as well as races.

While many defense attorneys will argue that the fine print on the disclaimers is enough to cover possible claims, each case must be evaluated independently. Invariably, defense argues that attending an extreme sporting event is inherently dangerous, and that spectators can be injured—which is allegedly why they include a written warning on the admission tickets. Often, such cases are confidentially resolved or quashed, and victims are offered a large confidential settlement prior to the filing of a public lawsuit.

From my point of view, as an attorney who has successfully breached such waivers, I would argue that disclaimers only cover normal risks, and that such exculpatory language cannot remove claims of negligence or recklessness, if the owner or operator of the attraction is deemed to have acted inappropriately. In addition, there is often a separate cause of action for product liability, which would not be waived by any such disclaimer. This can come into play if fences or barriers are not properly constructed, or are constructed with improper materials.

In the case of the Daytona crash, this seems to have been the case. The catch-fences, put in place with the express purpose of protecting spectators from flying debris or foreign objects, did not do what they were supposed to do. The same thing happened in a similar crash at the Talladega Super Speedway in Talladega, Alabama, in 2009, when a car hurtled into a catch-fence, injuring 7 people. And, in 2011, IndyCar driver Dan Wheldon was killed when his racecar went airborne and plowed into a catch-fence at Las Vegas Motor Speedway.
The type of catch-fence in use at Daytona International Speedway—25 feet tall, with tightly pulled cable that supposedly leaves little room for flying debris to penetrate—is the same type of fence that surrounds all NASCAR Sprint Cup tracks. NASCAR is said to be planning a review of catch-fence safety.

The amusement park accident and recreational torts injury attorneys of Reiff and Bily have been recognized by their peers as having the highest possible ratings in both legal ability and ethical standards. They are consistently recognized as Pennsylvania Super Lawyers, and are members of the National Trial Lawyers Top 100 Trial Attorneys.

Third party legal cases that involve first party medical payment plans and subrogation interests can be tough to resolve. Quite often, a medical payer will assert a subrogation interest and lien on a third party liability claim, in an effort recover the full payment of medical bills. As Pennsylvania catastrophic injury and car accident lawyers, we believe that all plans, even self-funded ERISA plans, should be forced to reduce such medical liens in proportion to the amount spent on attorneys’ fees for third party recovery.

In the case of US Airways, Inc. v. McCutchen, 663 F.3d 671 (3rd Cir. 2011), the Third Circuit Court reversed, on appeal, the decision of a Western Pennsylvania trial court ruling that a lien had to be repaid in full, with no reduction. The case involved a self-funded ERISA plan, to which the Court applied the traditional equity principle of unjust enrichment. It held that any judgment requiring the victim or plaintiff to provide a full reimbursement to the employer—in this case, US Airways—would constitute inequitable relief, because the amount exceeded the net amount of the victim’s third party liability recovery. The Court ruled that requiring the victim to fully reimburse his or her employer’s health plan would result in a windfall for the employer—who had contributed nothing to the cost of obtaining a third party recovery. Noting that “equity abhors a windfall,” the Court concluded that equity applies to subrogation rights under an ERISA plan. In the case of McCutchen, Counsel successfully argued that, if legal fees or costs were not taken into account, the employer , US Airways, would effectively be reaching into its beneficiary’s pocket—thereby placing the beneficiary in a worse position than if he or she had not pursued a third party recovery in the first place.

A third party lien holder that attempts the full recovery of a subrogation interest, and wrongfully seizes or attaches the funds of another for its own purposes, is committing what is known as a theft- by-conversion. Conversion is when a defendant assumes and exercises ownership or control over property or funds belonging to someone else —without authorization—thereby depriving the other person of property or funds. Whenever a third party lien holder or medical plan claims the right to full recovery, and either refuses to reduce its recovery, or insists on a minimal reduction, the victim needs aggressive legal protection to ensure that he or she will not be cheated by an insurance carrier, adjuster, or independent adjuster who violates the law.

This principle applies to many personal injury cases—particularly, settlements involving a spouse’s right of compensation and/or recovery for loss of consortium—which are “off limits” for the recovery of subrogation interests. In one case, that of ACS Recovery Services Inc. v. Griffin, 676 F.3d 512 (5th Cir. 2012), the Court stated that—unless the plan agreement states specifically that it can seek reimbursement from an award for loss of consortium made to a beneficiary’s spouse—it cannot recover such funds. In other words, the plan, or third party lien holder, would have no rights to recovery on any portion of the spouse’s settlement.

Jeffrey Reiff is a catastrophic injury and car accident lawyer in Pennsylvania who has been recognized as one of the Top 100 Lawyers in Philadelphia and one of the Top Northeast Lawyers. He has regularly been named a Pennsylvania Super Lawyer, and has consistently been rated Superb by Avvo.com.

Recently, 25-year old X Games athlete, Caleb Moore, performed a flip that went wrong, as he clipped the top of the jump and went over the handlebars of his snowmobile. Moore was able to walk off the course, with help, and go to the hospital, where he was diagnosed with concussion. Unfortunately, however, due to complications, he passed away shortly thereafter.

Our thoughts and prayers go out to the family and friends of Caleb Moore, who lived life passionately, and served as an inspiration to everyone involved in the extreme and action sports community. In calling attention to this tragic accident, it is my hope—as a consumer safety advocate and a closed-head trauma and traumatic brain injury attorney—to increase awareness of the seriousness of intracranial injury.

While we all recognize that extreme sporting events are dangerous, we are apt to underestimate the most common athletic injury of all: concussion. Because athletes like Caleb Moore—and countless football, soccer, and hockey players—are able to get up and walk away, they are often presumed to be fine, and are encouraged by well-meaning coaches and parents to return to play before they are ready. More often than not, they end up sustaining many more head traumas during the course of their athletic careers, causing cumulative brain injury. For, even if the first injury is a mild one, every successive bang to the head increases the level of injury to the brain. According to news sources, it is estimated that Caleb Moore had sustained ten previous concussions prior to his fatal accident.

Approximately half a million sports-related concussions occur each year in the United States. At this moment, litigation is pending for close to 4,000 football players with head injuries—now the top trauma-related cause of death among athletes. Fortunately, however, traumatic brain injuries (TBIs) among athletes have been widely researched in recent years, thereby paving the way for greater public awareness and understanding.

Of course, you don’t have to be an athlete to sustain a concussion—or multiple concussions, for that matter. Car accidents, motorcycle accidents, falls, or blows to the head can cause the same damage as snowmobile accidents or dangerous tackles.

Traumatic brain injuries and closed head traumas—aptly called “invisible injuries— are a serious health problem in the United States. Even a minor concussion can cause significant and sustained neurological and cognitive impairment, and can diminish one’s ability to process information at normal speeds. All too frequently, head trauma results in memory impairment, diminished spatial perception, and/or long-lasting emotional, mental, and behavioral changes.

The impact of closed-head injury and brain trauma on a family is devastating. If you or a loved one has sustained an injury to the head and skull, it is imperative that you seek an independent medical examination by a qualified health professional. TBI has the potential to kill--or to cause catastrophic injuries that require life-long care, which can greatly impact the victim’s family members, both emotionally and financially.

Continue reading "Never Underestimate the Power of a Concussion" »

In my practice as a Philadelphia trucking accident and car accident lawyer, I have noticed a disturbing trend. More and more frequently, auto insurance companies and their overzealous lawyers are attempting to intimidate car accident victims into having defense medical exams—misleadingly called “independent medical exams” (IMEs)—in highly inconvenient, faraway locations. There is usually a good reason for the defense to choose a doctor located in a place that requires “burdensome and extensive travel.” It is, quite simply, to harass the injured party.

Generally speaking, the doctor chosen for an IME is “on the payroll”—that is, paid generously by the insurance carrier to write a medical report that is biased in favor of the insurance company. As many physicians watch their incomes decline, with changes in insurance reimbursements, this practice provides a welcome source of revenue. And, indeed, the monetary rewards are great for a report that contests the victim’s complaints.

It is well established, under the law of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, that a plaintiff should not be compelled to travel a great distance, unless the insurance company and its attorneys show good cause for the requested examination. Thus, the defense lawyer for the insurance company must prove the need for the exam.

A skilled plaintiff’s counsel should always argue that traveling an unreasonable distance without good cause is unduly burdensome to his or her client--which is especially true if the client is injured and in pain. He or she should also argue that, if an examination by such a doctor-- sometimes called a “painted lady” expert—is needed, the doctor can travel to another office closer to the plaintiff. The Court will generally determine whether good cause exists for travel to an extreme location.

The Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure provide that “when the mental or physical condition of a party is in controversy, the party may be able to submit to a physical or mental examination.” The law further stipulates that this order may be made “only on motion for good cause shown, and upon notice that the person shall be examined, and shall specify the time, place, manner, and scope of the examination, and the person or persons by whom it is to be made.” The law also states that no discovery shall be permitted in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania that “would cause unreasonable annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, burden, or expense” to any party.

Our office aggressively contests unreasonable independent medical examinations, and we will often assert to the Court—utilizing MapQuest or other services readily available on the Internet—that such an exam requires driving hundreds of miles, for a plaintiff or victim who is already injured. The Courts have generally ruled that requiring a plaintiff to travel in excess of a hundred miles to attend an IME–- without extraordinary proof that a qualified physician in the specialty is not available in plaintiff’s home county or closer location—is unreasonable. In the Philadelphia metropolitan area, with its unparalleled medical resources, this is most often the case.

You and your lawyer should not be afraid to tackle the opposition--namely the insurance company and its defense attorneys—and make it prove to the Court that a good cause exists for an examination by a doctor located far away.

Jeffrey Reiff has litigated thousands of car accidents since 1979. He is a member of the National Trial Lawyers’ Top 100 Trial Lawyers, and has been voted one of the Top 100 Lawyers in Philadelphia. He is regularly nominated as a Pennsylvania Super Lawyer, and has received the AVVO 10/10 People’s Choice Award.

The last thing one expects when entering a place of business is to be assaulted by the person entrusted with the job of protection. But, sadly, such occurrences do take place. I recently concluded a case in which a teenage female victim was sexually molested by a security guard who had a criminal record, and had only listed relatives as work references. A background check by an independent party would have alerted a careful employer to the applicant’s criminal record, and prevented this senseless act.

An employer is obliged to prevent unsafe individuals from coming into context with its customers—or business invitees—and to perform due diligence during the hiring process. Due diligence should include a background check, to ensure that the applicant does not pose a threat of injury or bodily harm. When the employee is a security guard, the stakes are especially high, owing to the nature of the work and the extent of contact that this individual will have with the public.

Needless to say, an individual with a questionable background or a history of violent crime will have a higher risk of committing a crime than another person. Yet, believe it or not, many employers never investigate an applicant’s criminal background—even in the case of security guards. They will sacrifice the safety of others rather than spend the small amount it takes to do so.

Recently, a case was successfully resolved for millions of dollars, against a national oil company that hired a clerk who suffered from schizophrenia and other mental problems. An altercation occurred, and a visitor to the store was shot and killed. The parents of the victim sued the employer, alleging negligent hiring and training, and a failure to establish an appropriate security plan.

In Pennsylvania , an employer may be liable for negligent hiring, retention, and supervision, if the employer knew—or should have known— that the employee was dangerous, careless, or incompetent, and that his or her conduct could harm a third person. The Court determines whether the defendant employer “knew or should have known” that his employee had a propensity for violence, and could potentially harm a third person. The scope of the employer’s duty is limited to those risks that are reasonably foreseeable.

Obviously, if of an employee has a history of criminal action or sexual abuse, and the employer has failed to take action to prevent foreseeable harm, the employer will be held responsible for the actions of the employee. A background check of an applicant’s criminal past, together with disciplinary records from public and private agencies, should always be performed, in order to avoid liability for negligent supervision and hiring.

Many employers claim that they did not have knowledge of the violent employee’s background, and that their failure to undertake a background check derived from a wish to protect the privacy of the applicant and avoid discriminating. This argument does not hold, however, as a background check cannot be done without the written permission of the job seeker, according to the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse.

In the case of a rape, sexual assault, or violent criminal act by an employee, several factors must be evaluated to determine liability—including lighting, security cameras, and the presence of secluded locations on the premises where such acts can occur. The victim of an assault carried about by a security guard must establish that the employer breached his or her duty to protect others from the risk of harm.

If you or a loved one has been sexually assaulted or has sustained a violent attack while on the premises of a store or other business, it is important to contact an experienced negligent security attorney to properly evaluate your claim.

Jeffrey Reiff, an experienced criminal assault, negligent security, and sexual assault lawyer, has been recognized as one of Pennsylvania’s top attorneys from 2004 to the present, and has received the highest rating in both legal ability and ethical standards. Mr. Reiff has been recognized as one of the Top 100 Trial Lawyers by National Trial Lawyers Association.

Verbal, emotional, and physical bullying of students can have horrific consequences. Last year, thousands of students committed suicide as the result of bullying, and it is said that almost 200,000 children stay home from school each day, out of fear of being bullied. Recent research indicates that almost 30% of all students in America are affected by bullying—with deep and long lasting consequences, including self-esteem and confidence issues, anxiety, and depression. The deterioration of the victim’s physical and psychological well-being often requires anti-anxiety and depression medications, and therapy.

Bullying at school typically involves punching, pushing, and other aggressive physical behavior, together with psychological bullying, in the form of name calling, verbal abuse, ostracism, or ridiculing of the victim’s sexual orientation. Typically, due to peer and social pressures, most students who witness bullying are reluctant to come forth—either for fear that they may be the next victim, or because they really don’t care enough to take a stand. And, sadly, bullying is not limited to offenses by one student against another; it can also involve the abuse of power and control by teachers.

In recent years, a new and invidious form of bullying has arisen: cyber-bullying. This phenomenon, which takes place largely on social networks, enables one bully to reach thousands of anonymous others, multiplying the horror in a way that is enormously frightening way for a young victim.

As someone who has been a school bullying and sexual abuse lawyer for over three decades—and who also happens to be married to a psychologist and teacher—I am well aware that unmonitored bullying leads to long-term psychological problems, and sometimes suicide. I am also aware that school officials may be held legally responsible for damages, if they knowingly allow a dangerous condition to exist which can lead to the foreseeable injury or death of a victim.

Many times each year, I receive phone calls from distressed parents or relatives of bullied school victims who have put school officials, teachers, and counselors on alert about a problematic situation, but to no avail. Too often, despite parental complaints, school officials and teachers fail to take appropriate actions—until it is too late. Similarly, the legal system rarely gets involved with school bullying until after a serious situation has occurred. I believe that a more proactive stance is required by educators and lawmakers, and I salute private attorneys who are willing to march forward on behalf of those who are bullied.

Forty-seven states have passed legislation requiring schools to address the bullying problem. Accordingly, teachers, principals, and school boards are being required to address the issue—and they can be held professionally and legally responsible if they are aware of a dangerous situation and fail to address it.

Pennsylvania law requires that each school adopt a policy on bullying, or amend an existing policy, in accordance with the School Entities Code of Conduct, under 22 Pa. Code §12.3 (c). The policy must set forth disciplinary consequences for bullying, and provide for prevention, intervention, and educational programs.

The law defines bullying as an intentional written, verbal, electronic, or physical act, or series of acts, that is directed at another student or students, and occurs in a school setting. It is severe, persistent, and pervasive, and has the effect of interfering with a student’s education, creating a threatening environment, and substantially disrupting the orderly operation of the school.

If your child or teen is the victim of bullying or abuse at school, you should be aware that this is not one of the normal rites of passages that many claim it is. Indeed, bullying may have serious civil and legal consequences for the offenders and the educational institutions that harbor them.

Jeffrey M. Reiff is committed to protecting victims of bullying, and to working on new solutions to the challenges faced by victims and those who serve them.

The enormity of the child sex abuse scandal at Penn State brought attention to a phenomenon that is literally unspeakable—and was, until recently, largely off limits in public conversation. The abuse of eight or more under-age boys by a prominent figure forced the public to face an ugly reality.

As a sexual abuse lawyer for over thirty years, I see that people are now less afraid to come forward and speak about the searing impact of these horrendous offenses—and about the failure of those in positions of power to properly address their needs . Yet, increased openness, while liberating for the victims of sexual abuse, has created new legal and legislative challenges.

There are more than 10,000 victim service agencies in the United States, and victims have rights in all 50 states. Yet, it is clear that laws and regulations with more teeth are required in order to meet the emerging challenges. Private civil attorneys must step forward to close the gaps that have kept victims from being adequately served, so that innocent victims, whose lives have been shattered, can receive the support they need and deserve. And federal, state, and local governments must demonstrate the insight and ingenuity to provide victims with new solutions— and prevent future acts of this nature from taking place.

Despite growing awareness, the problem is as serious as ever. Less than 50 percent of all sexual abuse cases are reported, even today. And, despite the psychological and physiological damage caused by sexual abuse, only a small fraction of its victims receive the help they need. At the very time that public awareness has grown, the agencies that help sexual abuse victims are themselves being victimized by funding cuts. What’s more, sexual abuse cases are on the rise in Pennsylvania.

The trauma of sexual abuse, as well as the the post- traumatic stress that follows it, is unfathomable. It creates a confusing vulnerability that can shatter one’s hopes and dreams, in both an emotional and physical sense, keeping one from moving forward. Oftentimes, sexual abuse victims will engage in self-destructive behaviors such as alcohol, drug abuse, and gambling, and will participate in risky and impulsive activities—not to mention the fact hat they often end up with serious eating disorders and personality disorders.

If you are victim of sexual abuse, it is vitally important to contact an experienced sexual abuse lawyer, to help you deal with the psychological aftershocks, and to hold the perpetrator responsible and accountable for his or her actions.

As a sexual abuse lawyer whose family has experienced the consequences of sexual abuse first hand –and who has helped several victim attain a healthy physical, emotional and legal outcome--I know that victims equipped with proper representation can see the light at the end of the tunnel.