Philadelphia Injury Attorney Blog

Over the years, as an experienced catastrophic accident attorney , I have represented a number of clients who were injured at a gym, or on a ski slope and the business owner or operator attempted to deny coverage or liability due to an exculpatory clause in the contract, membership agreement, or lift ticket that stated that the facility waived any liability in the event of an accident.

Pennsylvania law provides that an exculpatory clause or a clause waiving liability is valid if it does not violate any policy of the law, the contract is between persons relating entirely to their own affairs and each party is a “free bargaining agent”, and is not in effect a contract or adhesion whereby one party simply adheres to a document which is powerless to alter having no alternative than to reject the transaction entirely. Even if a clause in a contract is determined to be exculpatory, the Supreme Court has established standards that must be met before it will relieve one from liability that the law would otherwise impose.

1) It must be strictly construed since it is not favorite of the law.

2) It must spell out the contention of the parties the greatest particularity so as to show an intent to release from liability beyond a reasonable doubt by express stipulation, no inference from words or general import can establish it.

3) It must be construed against the parties seeking immunity.

4) The burden to establish immunity is upon the party who asserts it.

Obviously if you or a loved one has suffered a catastrophic injury or wrongful death at a business entity, property or recreational facility of another, a clause attempting to limit or extinguish their liability may not necessarily release the offending party from their responsibility for injuries and accidents. Many individuals and lawyers pay heed to the chilling effect of these clauses and do not understand that such communication must be understandable without ambiguity or deception and may often call for the involvement of an experienced catastrophic injury or wrongful death lawyer.

For over three decades, the experienced Pennsylvania personal injury and Philadelphia premise liability lawyers of Reiff & Bily have successfully tackled some of the nation’s toughest defendants and largest corporations on a no recovery, no fee basis representing the interests of consumers. We believe that safety and not profitability should be priority one, and our skilled catastrophic injury attorneys have a successful track record holding wrongdoers accountable. For more information, contact us toll free at 1-800-421-9595 or online at www.reiffandbily.com.

The other night I was leaving my office at approximately 8:30 p.m. and fell hard on my back on wet leaves a half block from my office building. The wet leaves were on top of a piece of steel covering a construction site abutting the pavement in front of a restaurant creating a condition similar to ice. I fell flat on my back and struck the back of my head on the ground and was not sure what happened as the slip and fall occurred in an instant. I consider myself very lucky because as an experienced Philadelphia slip and fall lawyer since 1979, I have successfully represented many slip and fall victims who were not as fortunate and suffered life altering catastrophic injuries in a similar instance.

As a Pennsylvania slip and fall accident and premises liability lawyer who has handled thousands of slip and fall cases with a successful track record, I am well aware that slip and fall accidents happen for many reasons due to puddles, uneven walking surfaces, poor lighting, obstructions on walking surfaces, and artificial conditions. Very commonly the combination of fallen leaves and water creates a dangerous situation and the owner of the premise may be held liable and an experienced slip and fall lawyer is able to prove that the premise owner’s negligence or recklessness lead to the slip and fall accident. In my situation, the premise owner had trees and pots outside whose leaves had fallen on a temporarily placed steel cover which was further lubricated with water. As a skilled premise liability lawyer, it would be fairly easy for me to prove that the owner knew or should have known that a dangerous condition existed on his or her premise. If the hazardous condition consisted for a length of time and the owner by exercising reasonable and ordinary due care should have discovered the condition then the owner would be presumed to have constructive knowledge and be held liable for resulting injuries. As an experienced Philadelphia premise liability and slip and fall attorney, I recommend that all homeowners and premise owners maintain their properties and perform a survey of potential dangerous conditions inside and outside of their home because if not and someone is injured, there is a good chance an experienced personal injury or slip and fall lawyer is going to be coming after you to recover compensatory damages on behalf of an injured plaintiff.

If you or a loved one has been involved in a Pennsylvania slip and fall accident, please feel free to contact one of our experienced slip and fall or premises liability lawyers for a free, no obligation consultation as we are “greedy for justice”. As always, we are pleased to offer a no recovery, zero fee guarantee which means that if we don’t win your case, you don’t owe us a dime. Put 30 plus years of experience with slip and fall accidents on your side by contacting a Reiff & Bily slip and fall or premises liability lawyer at 1-800-421-9595 or online at www.reiffandbily.com.

PHILADELPHIA NURSING HOME ABUSE ATTORNEY, JEFFREY REIFF, WEIGHS IN

According to a study referred to by Robert Pear in the New York Times on Monday, September 29, 2008, more than 90% of nursing homes were cited for violations of Federal Health and Safety standards last year, and for profit homes more likely have problems than other types of nursing homes, Federal investigators stated in a report issued Monday, September 29, 2008. According to the article, about 17% of nursing homes had deficiencies that caused “actual harm or immediate jeopardy” to patients according to a report by Dr. Daniel R. Levinson, the Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services. (New York Times article).

Problems included bed sores, medication mixups, poor nutrition and abuse and neglect of patients. Inspectors received 37,150 complaints about conditions in nursing homes last year and this substantiated 39% of them the report said. About 1/5 of the complaints verified by Federal and State authorities involved the abuse or neglect of patients.

About 2/3 of nursing homes are owned by for profit companies, while 27% are owned by non-profit organizations and 6% by government entities according to the report. The Inspector General noted that 94% of for profit nursing homes were cited for deficiencies last year, compared with 88% of non-profit homes and 91% of government homes.

“For profit nursing homes have a higher average number of deficiencies than other types of nursing homes,” Mr. Levinson said. “In 2007, for profit nursing homes averages 7.6% deficiencies per home, while non-profit and government homes averaged 5.7 and 6.3% respectively”. On Monday, Mr. Levinson issued a compliance guide for nursing homes that says some homes have “systematically failed to provide staff in sufficient numbers with appropriate clinical expertise to serve their residents”.

Continue reading "94% OF NURSING HOMES WERE CITED FOR VIOLATIONS OF FEDERAL HEALTH AND SAFETY STANDARDS LAST YEAR - FOR PROFIT HOMES MORE LIKELY TO HAVE PROBLEMS THAN OTHER TYPES OF NURSING HOMES CLAIM FEDERAL INVESTIGATORS " »

Premises liability assigns blame to the owner of the venue where a violation is committed. A building code is generally a set of rules that sets forth guidelines for acceptable safety levels for constructed objects such as buildings, apartments, hotels, houses and other structures. These codes were enacted to protect public health, safety and general welfare of individuals as they relate to the construction and occupancy of buildings and structures.

I recently concluded a case where a young mother and her two year old daughter stepped on her apartment balcony, which was three stories above the ground, after which the balcony became unsecured from the premises, tilted to the ground causing the plaintiff to be thrown three stories resulting in a substantial and life altering injury. Our experts and structural engineers investigated the matter and determined that the balcony was never secured properly, was improperly maintained, and was never inspected in a proper and due fashion. A method of affixation of the balcony to the building was in violation of the building codes. The landlord’s failure to maintain and inspect the balcony was completely irresponsible and negligent, subjecting a rent-paying tenant to undue risk, harm and, ultimately, life changing injuries.

Building codes were established to set forth minimal acceptable standards necessary for protecting people and property. Normally, we hear about violation of building codes when a natural disaster strikes. However, many times owners of homes, buildings, or apartments attempt to save money by taking shortcuts in violation of local laws and building codes. For example, commonly electrical work is performed by non-licensed electricians. The fire prevention code limits the number of wires under each screw in a receptacle or switch. It appears safe to use but fires can occur when the second wire pops out from underneath the screw so one is maximum. Code also requires that outlets be placed every six feet along walls in most rooms and every two feet along kitchen counters to accommodate short safety cords on kitchen appliances. Also, all light fixtures must be grounded. In kitchens, there must be a 15 amp lighting circuit, as well as a separate circuit for the dishwasher and refrigerator and two 20 amp circuits for receptacles. Local and federal codes change regularly so it is important that the necessary research be committed before starting a project.

For approximately 30 years, the Philadelphia personal injury lawyers of Pennsylvania personal injury attorneys have been successfully prosecuting premise liability claims. Property and land owners are required to maintain their properties in such a way that it protects those who are lawfully upon the premises.

Continue reading "VIOLATION OF BUILDING CODES AND PREMISES LIABILITY IS YOUR APARTMENT, HOTEL ROOM OR OFFICE SAFE? " »

The Ground You Walk On May Not Be As Safe As You Thought

Slip and fall accidents are the most common type of premises liability cases and occur on a daily basis in the United States and in Pennsylvania. The very ground you walk on can be unsafe if it is not maintained properly. Tile Safe reports that slip and fall accidents account for over 20,000 deaths per year in North America and over 540,000 accidents require hospital care. The Pennsylvania slip and fall lawyers at the Philadelphia law firm of Reiff & Bily have been researching and successfully handling slip and fall cases since 1979.

Even the best maintained property can have problems, which can lead to serious injury. Over time, smooth surfaces can become uneven and useful items such as a drainage system can become a hazard. The three main types of accidents are: (1) trip and fall, where a foreign object or defect (like a cracked sidewalk) is the primary cause of the fall; (2) slip and fall, where there is an inconsistent grip on the floor or bottom of a shoe; and (3) step and fall, where an injury is caused by a hole or dip in the walking surface.

Slip and falls can occur anywhere and are most common at casinos, restaurants, movie theaters, public buildings, hotels, school, or houses of worship. If unsafe property caused injury the property owner could be liable for monetary damages to the injured party. To prove liability, one of the three situations must apply: (1) the property owner or employee caused the unsafe condition and the subsequent slip and fall accident (like spilling something and not cleaning it up); (2) the property owner or employee knew about the condition but did not try to correct it or warn about the unsafe condition; or (3) the property owner or employee should have known about the danger because a "reasonable person” would have found the problem and taken steps to prevent possible injuries. A "reasonable person" is someone who makes regular and thorough efforts to keep the property safe and clean under the current circumstances.

Continue reading "Slip And Fall Injuries In Pennsylvania" »