PR Buzz’s Post

$2.3M Premises Liability Verdict Against Philadelphia Housing Authority Sets Up Challenge to State Damages Cap — MediaContacts.co — The plaintiff's #attorney #Philadelphia #injury attorney Leonard #Hill of Hill #Amp Associates, #PC intends to use the #case to #challenge a $250,000 #cap on damages against #state agencies. PHILADELPHIA, May #12 #2024 Summary "Because of the existing cap, a #lot of #lawyers #dont want to get verdicts, so they will settle a case that should be in the multi-millions for pennies on the #dollar plaintiff's #lawyer Leonard Hill, of Hill & Associates, said. Plaintiff's lawyer Leonard Hill intends to use the case to challenge Pennsylvania's cap on damages against state agencies. The jury's seven-figure #award was against the Philadelphia #Housing Authority, so it is subject to a $250,000 #limit on what a single plaintiff can #collect against the state. But Leonard Hill of Hill & Associates #said the cap is overdue for an adjustment. "Because of the cap, a lot of lawyers don't want to get verdicts, so they will settle a case that should be in the multi-millions for pennies on the dollar," Hill said. Hill said he intends to take the case, captioned #Logan #v Philadelphia Housing Authority, to the #Pennsylvania Supreme Court. He is currently preparing a post-trial motion arguing that the cap violates plaintiffs' due process rights. This challenge won't be the first to question the constitutionality of the damages cap. Another case, Frielich v. SEPTA, is awaiting a ruling on a petition for appeal before the Supreme Court on the same central issue, after lower courts ruled that they were constrained by precedent to reject the plaintiffs' challenge. Despite ruling against the plaintiffs, the lower courts suggested in their respective opinions that the cap may be unfair. And Frielich was crafted as a response to a 2014 high court decision that upheld a $500,000 cap on damages against municipal agencies but was accompanied by a concurring opinion that left the door open for further challenges. According to Leonard Hill, the legal questions involved in Logan mirror those found in the other cap challenges. "It's the same constitutional argument," he said, "but what's important is not so much the sameness, it's the repetitiveness." Hill said the number of constitutional challenges to the cap reflects how often juries find state agencies are liable for damages above and beyond what the limit allows. "The citizens of Pennsylvania are upset that these caps are too low" he said. The jury's Feb. 27 verdict in Logan valued plaintiff Arthur Logan's damages at $2.3 million, though the award was reduced to $1.9 million based on a finding that the plaintiff was 35% negligent. The trial was held before Judge Susan Schulman of the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas. Logan claimed he sustained a knee injury falling down poorly lit steps on a property owned by the Philadelphia Housing Authority

MICHIGAN POLICY SHIFT TO SLIP AND FALLS By: Georgianne M. Walker The Michigan Supreme Court overturned a 2001 precedent that had all but ended most slip and fall cases in Michigan before they began. In July 2023 in a 5 to 2 Opinion authored by Chief Justice Elizabeth Clement, the majority of the Michigan Supreme Court introduced a new framework for premises liability that puts the decision of whether a defendant owes a duty to ensure a space is reasonably well kept, and a plaintiff’s comparative fault in avoiding that danger, to a jury. The majority concluded that a practice established by a 2001 case Lugo v. Ameritech Corp. to put the “open and obvious danger” doctrine, and any exceptions to it, in the “duty analysis” runs afoul of Michigan’s law and commitment to be a comparative fault jurisdiction.    The prior case law would often leave injured slip and fall plaintiffs with no recovery as soon as a court, rather than a jury, decided no duty was owed. The Lugo decision was overruled to make the open and obvious danger doctrine a part of a landowners duty. In overturning that decision, the Michigan Supreme Court stated that a land possessor should “anticipate” harm that comes from an open and obvious condition. Despite its obviousness, the owner is not relieved of the duty of reasonable care of the property. This is a change from putting the onus on a plaintiff, who under the Lugo decision, was bound by their own knowledge to anticipate a danger. The prior law held that a property owner does not have a duty to warn about an open and obvious condition (think large pot hole or winter ice) unless it is found to have certain special aspects such as being “unreasonably dangerous” or “effectively unavoidable”. The open and obvious inquiry was, until July of 2023, looked at under the “duty analysis”, which has courts looking at the plaintiff’s actions rather than a defendant’s duty to take reasonable care.   The opposite side of the argument is that the Michigan Supreme Court has now greatly expanded liability, which could lead to more litigation and destabalize the law.    Given the previous law in Michigan regarding slip and falls, most such cases were not taken by plaintiff attorneys. Although Michigan attorneys will be more likely to take a slip and fall case, it should be noted that there will be attorneys who have practiced in Michigan for decades who do not have much, if any, experience litigating slip and fall cases, whether on the plaintiff or defense side. Here at May Oberfell Lorber, however, several of our attorneys are licensed in both Indiana and Michigan and have been practicing premises liability (slip and fall cases) in Indiana without interruption, and are well-versed in the handling of such negligence cases, no matter the state.

We all experience moments where we just want something to be over, especially when dealing with a drawn-out process that has been emotionally taxing and overwhelming. This is especially true when it comes to legal matters. Litigation fatigue – the feeling of being worn down by the legal process – is a real phenomenon we see all too often in the legal space. Sadly, insurers are all too aware that a claimant will tire of the process and want out. They often use this fatigue to their advantage, offering lower settlements that don’t reflect the full impact of the individual’s injuries. Attwood Marshall Lawyers’ Compensation Law Senior Associate, Tina Davis sheds light on the emotional toll of litigation and the importance of persevering through the claims process despite the hurdles that can be thrown your way. Click below to read her blog. https://lnkd.in/gzgnSbxd

We have another example of what Judge Oldham has called “an evergreen problem” in the Fifth Circuit: parties failing to establish citizenship of limited liability companies. For the second time in less than two weeks, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has remanded a case for jurisdictional discovery after the parties have litigated to a final judgment in district court. Today in Megalomedia Inc., et al. v. Philadelphia Indemnity Ins. Co, No. 23-20570, slip op. (5th Cir. Sept. 20, 2024), the Fifth Circuit could not determine from the record whether the citizenship of the limited liability company plaintiffs was diverse from the defendant. The Circuit asked the parties for a letter brief identifying the record evidence proving the citizenship of each of the three limited liability parties. Id. at 3. The parties’ joint letter admitted that there was no such evidence. Id. So, back they go to the district court for jurisdictional discovery. If they cannot prove diversity jurisdiction after taking jurisdictional discovery, the judgment will be worthless, the case will be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and the parties will have to start from ground zero in state court—after having spent years and hundreds of thousands of dollars litigating the case in federal court. If you are filing a case in, or removing a case to, federal court based on diversity jurisdiction, remember: 1. Parties cannot stipulate to jurisdiction. 2. Citizenship of an LLC is determined by the citizenship of its members. Every member of every LLC on one side must be diverse from all parties on the others side. 3. At the summary judgment stage, the party must provide evidence sufficient to support a finding of the citizenship of each LLC’s members. 4. At trial, the party must prove the citizenship of each LLC’s members. (And if any member is an LLC, they must prove the citizenship of those LLCs all the way up the daisy chain.) 5. Alleging where a party “does business” or where it has its “principal place of business” is not enough! Principal Place of Business is irrelevant to the citizenship of an LLC. See id.  Be careful out there!

What to do after a crash - Part 3 The story: https://lnkd.in/g33eThxU ✔ Once you have filed an insurance claim, you will be offered an amount of money to settle your claim. Initial settlement offers are usually much lower than expected, so do not be surprised. Instead, consider the offer to be a starting point. ✔Litigation begins when you or your attorney files a “complaint” in state or federal court. Before filing a complaint on your behalf, an attorney will need to meet with you to learn about your claim and your injuries and have you execute an attorney-client agreement. ✔Discovery is the process of requesting information and documents from the other parties. The parties have 30 days to answer the interrogatories and produce the requested documents. Most importantly, you are under oath so you must answer questions honestly and completely. ✔In the months before trial, both sides will retain expert witnesses to support their arguments. In California, this is then followed by a trial often set 12 to 24 months after the lawsuit is filed. ✔Most courts require the parties to mediate a case before trial can begin. Once a settlement is reached, the case is over and the plaintiff cannot come after the defendant for any other damages, even if those damages were unforeseen at the time of the settlement. So, you must be very careful when deciding to settle. That being said, 98% of cases settle before trial, and we have found mediation to be very effective at getting substantial recoveries for our clients. This article provides guidance and tips on the litigation process and preparing for trial. However, this is not legal advice, and you should always contact a lawyer to discuss your specific case. #harrimanlaw #californialawyer #californiaattorney #bayarea

In A 2023 Snapshot, our expert commercial litigation, professional liability, competition, and employment litigators reflect on the significant developments, decisions, and takeaways from the last year and what to look forward to in 2024. Thank you to our authors, Monique Jilesen, Eli Lederman, Margaret Robbins, Arash Nayerahmadi, Jaan Lilles, Dena Varah, Colin Johnston, Paul-Erik Veel, Matthew Sammon, and Aoife Quinn!

In Idaho, if a landowner or possessor of land negligently maintains their property, resulting in injury, then the injured party may be able to sue the landowner and/or possessor for damages. This is commonly known as premises liability. Whether the landowner had a duty to protect the plaintiff from the hazard that injured them depends on if the plaintiff was a trespasser, licensee, or invitee. If you would like to discuss your injury claim with one of our premises liability attorneys, please call 800.273.5005 or email our attorneys at [email protected] to schedule a free lawyer consultation. Learn more about the legal distinctions between trespassers, licensees, and invitees, and how these classifications impact premises liability below: https://lnkd.in/et9a53TJ #PremisesLiability #Landowner #Property #Liability #Trespassers #Licensees #Invitees #LegalProcess #GLPAttorneys #PersonalInjuryAttorneys #PersonalInjuryLaw #LawFirm #Idaho #VictimAdvocacy #FreeConsultation

Settlement vs. trial—what’s the best option for your personal injury case? Willumsen Law Firm PC provides insight into both approaches and how our firm can help you make the right decision. Reach out to us today for a consultation. #SettlementVsTrial #PersonalInjuryCase #TexasLaw #WillumsenLawFirm

I've joined Creedon & Gill, P.C. as an Attorney on Long Island. Backed by more than seventy years of combined litigation and trial experience, I hope to grow my career and learn from the best. We understand what is at stake for our clients and what they may lose if a firm's legal approach is not agile, tactful, or efficient; we pride ourselves on building defense strategies and fighting for your rights. Our focus is on representing banks, construction companies, corporations, insurance companies, municipalities, self-insured employers, small businesses, retailers, and unions throughout New York State against liability claims for serious or catastrophic injury and/or wrongful death. Whether you need complex legal representation related to litigation and appellate matters in Administrative Law, Commercial/Business Litigation, Constitutional Law, Criminal Defense, Election Law, Liability Defense Litigation, Personal Injury, Products Liability & Mass Torts, Real Estate, and/or Wills, Trusts, and Estates, turn to a team of attorneys that has proven their strength and merit time and again. #BetterCallMarolda #SeeYouInCourt

I very much agree with this article. One of the biggest challenges in defending Louisiana personal injury litigation is the hidden medical/legal abuse whereby medical professionals and lawyers benefit from a system whereby the medical providers charge and recover much higher rates for litigation cases and assist in inflating the recoverable damages for plaintiffs and their attorneys. These doctors not only benefit from higher rates, but also from a steady stream of business from the attorneys. All they have to do in exchange is testify liberally and favorably for their attorney-referred patients by relating any and all conditions to the lawsuit and also testifying that plaintiff's will require substantial and long-term future medical treatment that never actually occurs after the lawsuit is resolved.