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.

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.

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.

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.

Corporate defendants and their lawyers are well schooled on how to present their own “show time” versions of how accidents happen. Immediately after an accident, many corporate defendants, trucking companies, and common carriers such as bus companies will have their drivers or representatives sit down with police or other officials to give their own exculpatory versions of how the accident happened.

Without eye witnesses and careful accident re-constructionists, skilled defense attorneys and corporate representatives may even be able to convincingly portray that their version is the only way the accident could have happened. Many naïve lawyers and jurors may succumb to their convincing dog and pony portrayal of liability.

Continue reading "Importance of Non-Spoliation Letter in Product Liability or Catastrophic Accident Case" »

Earlier this week in the process of picking a jury for a case where our client was permanently and catastrophically injured in a conservative Pennsylvania County, the conservative jury pool was quite vocal about their dislike of trial attorneys and their belief that caps on damages must come sooner than later.

For over 33 years, I have been proud to be a Pennsylvania personal injury lawyer “greedy for justice” seeking just compensation for my clients who have been catastrophically injured or unfortunately wrongfully killed due to the wrongdoing of another.

This time of year, I attend many holiday parties and meetings and unfortunately some of my colleagues or friends having difficult times in this tight economy seem to aim their guns at trial lawyers claiming that a “litigation explosion” has bankrupted their business and harmed them.

Continue reading "Refuting the Common Misconception that Personal Injury Lawyers are Job Killers and Parasites" »

As an experienced catastrophic injury and wrongful death lawyer for over 33 years, some of the most emotional and difficult situations for a family to deal with involves the death or injury to a parent or child. One can only imagine the anxiety, confusion, and emotional loss suffered by parents and caregivers, not to mention the victim. The loss of one’s hopes and dreams can become reality in an instant. One child injured is one too many.

Many times a catastrophic injury sustained by a child, elderly parent, or loved one will require permanent medical attention and life care and a skilled and experienced catastrophic injury lawyer should immediately preserve and avoid spoliation of any potential evidence and conduct a comprehensive client screening and investigation necessary to uncover all pertinent details about the causes of the injury or death, diagnosis, medical course of treatment, as well as potential defendants. A crucial part of this inquiry should involve family relationships between the victim and other family members as well as a consideration of “land mines” that might arise in the investigation and prosecution of the case.

Continue reading "There is Nothing More Distressing than When a Catastrophic Injury or Death is Sustained by Vulnerable Children or Elders" »

Many times I am contacted by clients who have sustained horrific injuries entering or exiting buses, trains, and planes, otherwise known as common carriers. The law maintains that the common carrier has a duty to warn passengers of dangers which it knows or ought to know and of which the passenger is ignorant, especially a danger which existed at a place other than a regular stopping place. For example, if there is ice on the steps of the vehicle or obstructions or defects in the street where the bus has stopped, or if there is a danger from passing vehicles from the approach of another vehicle, or if the ground is slippery where the passenger is about to exit, the carrier may be held responsible.

Additionally, if a train stops at a train station where there is an abnormal gap or space between the train and the platform, the carrier may be held responsible if a passenger slips and falls. The duty of the carrier may even be increased if, in fact, a passenger requests special attention due to special needs when boarding or exiting the vehicle when an employee or agent of the carrier fails to provide assistance. The carrier’s duty is not absolute unless the carrier knows or has reason to know of dangers.

Continue reading "Common Carriers Such as Airlines, Buses, and Train Operators Have a Duty to Warn Boarding and Exiting Passengers of Dangers When They Are Known to the Carrier and Not Known to Passengers" »

For the last three and a half decades as an experienced catastrophic injury lawyer whose law firm has litigated tens of thousands of cases, I was not surprised to learn that one of the most frequent causes of accidents is not texting, watching videos, or using cell phones, but wearing inappropriate footwear.

Recently, I was retained to prosecute an amusement park accident case whereupon a man sustained crippling injuries due to the fact he was allowed to wear non-skid water shoes on a water slide. In fact, unlike many other water parks who totally prohibit the use of water shoes on water slides, this well-branded national amusement park sold water shoes with a non-skid rubber sole indicating that the park’s owners or operators were more concerned with boosting bottom line profitability rather than concentrating on the safety concerns of park visitors, which should be priority number one.

Continue reading "Inappropriate Footwear is a Leading Cause of Many Accidents in the United States" »

Lost evidence almost always destroys what could have been a successful case. Unfortunately, many times our law firm is consulted several months after an incident or accident occurred after another lawyer has recognized that they are in over their head and had been looking for an easy “A” recovery which, evidently, was not going to happen.

When a complex accident occurs which causes catastrophic injuries, death, or property damage, it is important to immediately preserve the evidence and send non-spoliation of evidence letters to any and all responsible parties so that careful inspection and analysis can be conducted, and cause and origin can be determined.

The experienced Pennsylvania catastrophic injury lawyers of Reiff and Bily prefer to immediately retain an independent investigator and expert to inspect, as well as photograph the scene of the incident and the properties involved. A consultation with experienced experts will reveal what we need in order to properly evaluate our client’s claim. There is an old doctrine in law that states that anyone who loses or destroys evidence must suffer consequences.

This doctrine dates back to 18th century case law. Spoliation of evidence is defined as the destruction of material or alteration of evidence or the failure to preserve property for another’s use as evidence in pending or reasonably foreseeable litigation.

If you or a loved one has sustained a catastrophic injury as a result of negligence or a product failure or the actions of another, make sure that your attorney understands the spoliation doctrine and preserves any and all evidence necessary to successfully prosecute your claim. If you would like to speak to one of our knowledgeable attorneys about your particular situation, do not hesitate to contact us today at (800) 421-9595.

Recently a young 8-year old girl's scarf became caught in a carousel motor depriving her of oxygen and sending her into a coma while she was riding on a carousel amusement ride at a Paris carnival fairground. This strange but true factual scenario indicates just how dangerous loose clothing, scarves, or belts can be on amusement park rides.

While the amusement park’s management claim that this was the first time they had ever experienced such a serious accident, this tragic event should be noted by carnival and amusement park owners to insure that a repeat of this or a similar amusement park accident does not occur again.

At the experienced amusement park accident law firm of Reiff and Bily, we both believe and understand that chance favors the prepared mind and that all owners and operators of amusement parks have a duty to protect unknowing and innocent customers who come to their park seeking magical memories of excitement. We believe that those supervising and operating amusement park rides should have a safety inspection policy and be on the alert for any loose items of clothing or attachments that may potentially get snared or entrapped in a ride causing a catastrophic injury or wrongful death.

The experienced Pennsylvania amusement park attorneys of Reiff and Bily have investigated and litigated amusement park accident cases with great success and always offer a free, no obligation consultation to victims and their families who have been injured in amusement park and carnival accidents. For more information, contact us toll free at 1-800-421-9595 or online at www.reiffandbily.com.

Rick Santorum, a Republican candidate for President, blames lawyers and medical malpractice lawsuits for unnecessarily driving up health care costs. He claims that he will push to limit payments to medical malpractice lawsuit victims and has repeatedly spoken about caps on medical malpractice recoveries. What Mr. Santorum fails to mention in his campaign speeches is that he testified in support of his wife when she filed a medical malpractice lawsuit that allegedly sought $500,000 dollars in damages, which was twice the cap in his original legislative proposal. According to sources Karen Santorum, the wife of Rick Santorum, claimed that a chiropractor left her with a back injury that will result in a lifetime of pain medication and restriction of mobility.

On the campaign trail when questioned, Senator Santorum told reporters that he backed limits and that his wife did not sue for pain and suffering which is the area he thought should be capped. The Judge in the Santorum case stated that a majority of the $350,000 jury verdict awarded to the Santorum’s was largely for unspecific losses and pain and suffering which he concluded was excessive. It is unfortunate however, that after practicing as a Pennsylvania catastrophic injury and malpractice attorney for over 30 years, I often find that the people that complain the most about lawyers are the ones that are the greediest when it comes time to the resolution of their own claims. When they are the victim or a family member is the affected victim, they have a totally different view and yes, they too become “greedy for justice".

I was regularly attacked by a prominent physician in Philadelphia who when dining with me or socializing with me would always chastise the efforts of myself and other trial lawyers committed to achieving justice for injured victims. When this doctor sustained a catastrophic injury as the result of medical malpractice, the sky was the limit for how much he wanted. He was no longer calling for the caps on damages that he was so arrogant and vociferous about before his accident.

Why is it that people will say anything to get them elected to office, yet when it comes time to a personal tragedy where they or their family member is a victim, it is a different set of standards?

I have always believed that a man should be judged by his actions rather than his words. I am not afraid to admit that yes, I am still “greedy for justice" when a wrongdoing occurs caused by the negligence of another or a defectively manufactured product.

I believe wholeheartedly in the American justice system and the average 500 year collective wisdom of American juries.

As an experienced automobile defect and car accident attorney for over three decades, I recognize one thing, cars should be designed safely for everyone whether they are adults or children. Unfortunately, when it comes to safety many of the large automobile manufacturers have sacrificed the interests of both children and those individuals that are above or below average sized individuals.

Each year, thousands of children are seriously injured and killed due to poor seat belt fit or improper restraint systems in the vehicle.

Many times child and infant car seats are improperly designed or have manufacturing defects presenting hidden dangers. Children between the ages of 4 and 8 under 80 lbs. are typically less than 48 inches tall and are exposed to a higher risk of catastrophic injury or wrongful death than an adult because adult safety seat belts are designed to protect adults and not children. When a seat belt fails to protect or fit an individual correctly, there is an excellent chance that in a catastrophic accident restrained individuals will sustain a submersion injury, rollover injury, or positioning injury leading to catastrophic injuries such as quadriplegia, paraplegia, or death.

The Pennsylvania automobile defect and product liability lawyers of Reiff and Bily understand that prevention of injuries must always be priority number one rather than profits for automobile manufacturers. Seat belt restraint systems are design issues and defectively designed or manufactured seat belts and seat belt buckles that lead to potential failures, unlatch, false latch, inadvertent latch, and retractor failures create a catastrophically dangerous situation that many people do not learn of until it is just too late.

The National Highway Safety Administration is charged with writing and enforcing safety, theft resistance, and fuel economy guidelines for motor vehicles. However, as an experienced Pennsylvania automobile product liability attorney who has handled a substantial number of catastrophic car accident cases, I am well aware that these are only minimal standards and guidelines.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, (FMVSS), are regulations written in terms of the minimum safety performance requirements for motor vehicles, motor vehicle items, and motor vehicle equipment. Many of the big auto makers take pride in announcing that their vehicles meet these “minimal" standards, however, a safely designed car should exceed these standards, especially if there is a safer design alternative.

In 1980, NHTSA recognized the need for safer interiors of vehicles and identified improvements to padding and cushioning in the event of an accident. In 1989, the application of one inch of padding was required to interior surfaces which was indicated to reduce head trauma by half as much. The Department of Transportation estimated the cost of padding all roof, rails, and areas likely to have an impact was approximately $33 per car.

Safety is not one thing, it’s everything. Understanding that NHTSA or FMVSS government standards are only minimal guidelines and applying conventional wisdom that cars and motor vehicles should be safe makes it intolerable and unacceptable when automobile manufacturers cut corners and emphasize safety over profits. While automobile manufacturers always speak about compliance with federal standards, standard testing typically does not call for all types of situations or applications.

Keeping this in mind, if you or a loved one has been involved in a serious motor vehicle accident, you may want to contact an experienced car accident and automotive product liability attorney to fully evaluate your claim and search the road less traveled for answers and proper compensation. The experienced Pennsylvania car accident and automotive product liability lawyers of Reiff and Bily always offer a free, no obligation consultation. Contact us toll free at 1-800-421-9595 or online at www.reiffandbily.com.

When I was a young teenager in school one of my favorite books to read was “To Kill A Mockingbird". Atticus Finch, the fictional protagonist of the Pulitzer Prize winning novel is a lawyer in a small Alabama county and has been named as one of the greatest heroes in American film. In a rousing speech given to the jury, Finch claims “There is one way in this country in which all men are created equal – there is one human institution that makes a pauper the equal of a Rockefeller, the stupid man the equal of an Einstein, and the ignorant man the equal of any college President. That institution gentlemen is the court".

Although fictional, Atticus Finch has always been one of my heroes and one of the main reasons that I became a lawyer.

Every person is entitled to every presumption of reaching the heights of a lifetime without sustaining injuries that could have been easily prevented had it not been for the negligence of others, or a defectively designed product.

As an experienced Pennsylvania product liability and motor vehicle defect lawyer for over three decades, I have recognized that money, power, and greed often leads to ruthless and preventable catastrophic injuries and deaths that will greatly affect my clients and their families for the rest of their life. Many times when I visit a new case, I seethe with anger (which is not a bad starting point) as I search to put the pieces of the puzzle together which will shine a light on how my clients and their families were betrayed. In most cases the facts reveal that the victim suffered a wrong and is fully entitled to justice. One must always stand for something or you fall for anything.

I see how insurance companies and corporate defendants continue to turn their backs on catastrophically injured individuals or the victims of families who are wrongfully killed when the bills of life keep coming and the medical costs keep accumulating. I do believe that the right to enjoy one’s life in a safe and proper manner is not one thing, it is everything. Jeffrey Reiff is the founding partner of Reiff and Bily, a catastrophic injury and wrongful death law firm in Philadelphia, PA.

It has often been stated by legislators and lawmakers that greedy trial lawyers and their clients take advantage of the legal system by seeking large verdicts after they are injured by the negligence of another or by a defectively designed or defectively manufactured product.

For years, as an experienced catastrophic injury attorney, I would have friends talk to me about the famous “McDonald’s coffee case" when in fact they had no idea what that case was really about. In fact, the hot coffee propaganda campaign in the newspapers was funded by major corporations who have spent millions of dollars to distort the case promoting tort reform.

I urge all of my readers to view “Hot Coffee" which clearly reveals how large businesses and corporations aided by the media manipulated the public with lies to protect corporate interests. The film follows the lives of four individuals whose lives were devastated by the attacks on our courts, and challenges assumptions many Americans hold about “jackpot justice".

For over three decades, I have recognized that the collective 500 years of wisdom of individuals comprising a jury have more common sense than anyone else in the courtroom. It is conventional wisdom that products, cars, amusement rides, and premises should be safe from defects. Occupy Wall Street began a worldwide movement protesting social and economic inequality, corporate greed, as well as corruption and the undue influence that corporations have. The 7th Amendment of the United States Constitution grants us all the right to a trial by a jury of our peers.

Many of the product liability cases that our office regularly investigates and litigates involves someone’s deepest and darkest fears coming true. Imagine receiving a phone call in the middle of the night notifying you that your child or another loved one has been wrongfully killed as a result of being involved in a car accident caused by a defective product design or mechanism that the manufacturers have known for years created an unsafe condition. Everyone has the right to expect that when they purchase an automobile, they are buying a safe car and that safety should never be an option. Yet, in many of our automobile product liability cases, we have been able to show that automobile manufacturers concealed known defects putting the profitability and greed of corporate interests above consumer safety. Simply put, cutting corners on product design or manufacture and not putting safety first is never acceptable. The prevention of an injury must always be priority number one. Cars should be designed to be safe for everyone, adults and children. Concealing safety issues with bold faced lies in the name of business and profits is simply intolerable.

The experienced Philadelphia product liability lawyers of Reiff and Bily understand that one must never be afraid to stand up to big business and corporations. If you or a loved one has been injured by the defective design or manufacture of a product, contact one of our experienced Pennsylvania product liability lawyers for a free, no obligation consultation toll free at 1-800-421-95959 or online at www.reiffandbily.com.

For over three decades, I have been practicing catastrophic injury and wrongful death law and all too often a catastrophic injury or wrongful death is caused by a clear violation of laws that have minimal if any enforcement guidelines and “teeth".
Recently the Concordia cruise ship disaster illustrated just how many deaths and catastrophic injuries could be caused in an industry guided by rules that were spottily enforced. Every time an accident happens whether it involves a cruise ship, bus accident, trucking accident, amusement park accident, or product liability claim, authorities and experts are quick to state that the event is a wake-up call that highlights longstanding safety concerns.

In Philadelphia, we continue to have an escalating hit and run car accident crisis due to the fact that there are several well-known loopholes in the laws and yet legislators refuse to take steps to change and enforce codes which should in reality punish violators.

The law firm of Reiff and Bily has handled many amusement park accident cases, and yet the enforcement of these safety regulations is spotty despite the volume of rules and amount of unreported amusement park and water park accidents. Many industries escape regulatory scrutiny and it comes as no shock that catastrophic accidents occur when safety protocols are not followed and enforced. Rules and regulations without enforcement are meaningless and if the rules and regulations provide a mechanism for enforcement, individuals or corporations in positions of power often think (as demonstrated by their action or non-action) that they are above these rules and think that they can escape liability by the use of a creative lawyer or legal system which fails to enforce said rules and regulations. If our system chooses to ignore rules and regulations, it fosters a system where it is easier for individuals and corporations to become and remain corrupt then to remain honest.

I have always believed that laws not enforced cease to be laws, and rights not defended may wither away. I believe that the courtroom with proper legal representation makes equals of all men and that an injured victim must ensure that laws are followed and enforced. While catastrophic injury and personal injury lawyers will continue to be bashed by corporations and insurance companies who continue to delay, deny, and defend rightful claims, I for one understand that enforcement of laws and prosecution of wrongdoers are necessary to protect the public and promote order which is the first requisite of liberty and justice.

I was recently discussing a catastrophic death case with my opponent who seemed most focused on learning about how my client’s daily life and activities were affected from the catastrophic accident that tragically took her husband’s life when he was 32-years-old.

My client was perfectly healthy when he went in for a simple and innocent medical procedure and died one of the most painful and horrific deaths after he languished for many weeks with what our skilled medical malpractice lawyers and experts considered to be a negligent medical diagnosis and treatment. Obviously the words that I communicated to my experienced opponent seemed to ring hollow as I described what life was like for the surviving widow and young children of the unfortunate victim. As an experienced Philadelphia medical malpractice and product liability lawyer who has shared the losses of loved ones with all too many families over the last three decades, and as one who has also suffered the loss of a parent and dear friends, I understand that it is hard to put into words the feelings and emotions that overcome an individual when they learn of another’s passing and have to deal with it on a daily basis.

Many years ago, while handling a mass catastrophic accident involving the deaths of five individuals and extraordinary life changing injuries to nine others, I attended many funerals and had occasion to embed myself with the families of the victims. The outpouring of grief and emotions is almost impossible to accurately describe and communicate, and therefore, I reached out to an experienced grief counselor who had worked with victims of the 9/11 World Trade Center catastrophe. The grief counselor assembled a group of psychologists and psychiatrists to interview and counsel the surviving family members and was able to document and explain to the defense and the parties that they represented the complexities of grief and emotional trauma suffered by the plaintiffs and their survivors. Experienced grief counselors and psychologists understand the normal path of bereavement and grieving. I have learned that bereavement and grief possesses many different stages for individuals and have learned that as chance favors the prepared mind, it is best to prepare for this type of questioning by defense in any catastrophic injury or wrongful death case. Whereas a widow or child will normally be extremely emotional and cry as they detail the grieving process, a grief counselor and psychologist can assist in demonstrating the emotional damage aspect of the legal claim and help jurors understand the true extent of a client’s suffering.

If you or a loved one has sustained a catastrophic injury or wrongful death, the experienced Philadelphia personal injury and Philadelphia trial lawyers of Reiff and Bily understand the heartbreak and sorrow and what it takes to recover the financial damages to which you are entitled. We always offer a free, no obligation consultation as well as a no recovery, no fee guarantee. For more information, contact us toll free at 1-800-421-9595 or online at www.reiffandbily.com.

I have been actively practicing law since 1979 and yet many times when I meet colleagues who are trial lawyers they cannot help but tell me how much they hate the profession and can’t wait to get out. Many of my colleagues drink to forget and eliminate the stresses of the profession. On the other hand, there are many lawyers such as myself and my partners who love to practice law and feel blessed to have the opportunity to represent so many wonderful clients in need of our services. The practice regularly gives us energy as rise to new and different legal and interpersonal client challenges.

Since 1979, I have vigorously represented clients who have been catastrophically injured or wrongfully killed due to the negligence of another or due to a defectively designed or defectively manufactured product. I have always been amazed at how insurance companies and their “hired gun" defense attorneys attempt to minimize the value of a life changing injury, disfigurement, loss of reputation, impairment of mental and physical capacity, frustration, humiliation, degradation and an non-inclusive list of other factors when these same people will purchase pieces of art at prices in the millions or hundreds of millions of dollars. I have often asked myself why is a piece of art worth more than the value of a lost life or worth more than the injuries sustained by one whose life has been catastrophically changed due to the negligence of profit seeking motives of another. I have understood that as an experienced Philadelphia trial lawyer, I deal with situations on a daily basis where we must face the value of our client’s lost hope or dreams and yes, while many of the cases involve some of the most depressing facts that one could conceive, I still believe that in representing seriously injured clients, the loss of their dreams is much more important than the intangible value of a piece of art and have always given of myself 110% percent to help my injured clients and their families recover compensatory damages necessary to keep their dreams and hopes alive. Being a lawyer defines my life and I look forward every day to giving the best counsel possible to my clients. I understand that the greatest use of a life is to spend your time doing something that will outlast it and I know that the finest trial lawyers that I work with love what they do and understand that the pursuit of justice is truth in action. We understand that every individual and corporate entity has a responsibility for injustice anywhere in life and everywhere in the community.