Philadelphia Injury Attorney Blog

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.

Generally, during the litigation process of a case involving a catastrophic injury or wrongful death, settlement discussions are maintained with all parties and their attorneys, and the issue of a confidential settlement becomes an issue. This often presents an interesting dilemma for the client and the lawyer. Large corporate defendants, in personal injury and wrongful death cases, often refuse to agree to settle a claim without a confidentiality clause as part of the settlement. Typically, the confidentiality clause is required by the “at- fault party,” to prevent the injured person or attorney from acknowledging that the settlement occurred, or disclosing how much money was involved in the settlement.

Recently, we were presented with a ten-page confidentiality agreement that was so oppressive and burdensome to plaintiff’s counsel and his client that we deemed it to be unethical and illegal. Typically, confidentiality clauses maintain that, if the injured person or his or her attorney ever discloses the facts of the settlement, the defendant or “at fault party” in the settlement reserves the right to go back to Court to get its money back—or otherwise punish the injured party and his or her lawyer.

Accepting a confidentiality settlement is, in fact, a double-edged sword. Acceptance prevents the dissemination of the circumstances and facts of the case to other consumers or lawyers across the United States—who share information about similar cases—and may impose a limitation on the lawyer’s right to practice law and fully represent others in the future. It keeps others—who may not have knowledge of the situation—from bringing a legal action that could potentially deter the manufacturing and distribution of unsafe consumer products. Unfortunately, when there is a confidential settlement of a significant nature, the lawyer cannot advertise about the result, to let other lawyers and potential clients know how well he or she has done in cases involving the same corporation, manufacturer, or defendant.

Obviously, smaller cases typically do not require confidentiality clauses, because the risk of exposure to the defendant is not great. It actually behooves the wrongdoer to reveal that a less-than-significant figure was achieved in the litigation of the claim, to deter others from bringing an action.

If you or your attorney is confronted with a confidential settlement, it is important to carefully read and consider any language in the agreement which imposes a penalty, or voids a settlement, in the event of disclosure. It is essential to establish that the recovering party never be punished for disclosures beyond his or her control. For example, what would happen if the lawyer’s office or the client’s home was burglarized, or a pair of snooping eyes or ears, on the part of a housekeeper or friend, leaked the information? Indeed, there are potentially significant tax consequences for the defendant, if the agreement restricts the plaintiff in this way, since the IRS may argue that the plaintiff received money not as damages for personal injury, but as payment for silence.

We understand that, if a case involves consumer fraud or anything that can be harmful to the public, there may be ethical issues in asking or advising a client to agree to confidentiality. Needless to say, confidentiality agreements must be approached carefully, on a case-by-case basis, and with comprehensive understanding on the part of the injured party and his or her attorney, as to the goods, the bads, and the uglies of the situation.

Jeffrey Reiff has been recognized as one of the Top 100 Trial Lawyers by the National Trial Lawyers, and one of the Top Northeast Attorneys by Best and Brightest Magazine. He has successfully prosecuted many cases involving confidentiality agreements.

Each year, tens of thousands of people sustain catastrophic injuries—or die—on American highways, as the result of side impact crashes. Head-protecting side airbags are known to be the only way to prevent traumatic brain injuries and death in this type of accident. It is an established fact that side airbags reduce driver and passenger deaths and injuries by close to 40 per cent—and, more specifically, that side airbags that protect the head reduce fatality risks by 52%, while side airbags that only protect the torso reduce fatality risks by 30%. According to the National Highway and Traffic Safety Administration, if all cars were equipped with side airbags, thousands of lives would be saved annually.

Many automobile manufacturers offer side airbags as an option, and not as standard equipment, even though the cost of installing them is minimal compared to the risk of injury. Therefore, we believe that, if an individual sustains a catastrophic brain injury, paralysis, or wrongful death because a vehicle manufacturer did not install side airbags for protection—or because the side airbag system failed—the manufacturer ought to be held fully accountable. Indeed, when an automobile manufacturer fails to provide side air bag protection to the passenger, it can be held responsible for damages, according to vehicle design defect theory.

We recently completed litigation of a claim involving a woman who was struck by another vehicle that ran a red light. Of course, after protracted litigation, the other vehicle’s insurance company tendered their minimal insurance policy limits. However, that amount was not enough to fully compensate the victim, and we were able to obtain a significant additional amount from the manufacturer of the vehicle, owing to its failure to install side airbags on the vehicle.

We believe that safety, not profitability, should always be the number one concern, when it comes to the design and manufacture of motor vehicles. Our skilled auto defect and car accident lawyers understand that safety should never be an option. Jeffrey Reiff is a nationally recognized car accident and auto defect attorney dedicated to vehicle safety issues, and he deals with crashworthiness and other design issues seven days a week, 24/7.