Liever, Hyman & Potter, P.C.

Motorcycle accident attorneys know that motorcycle accident cases are a “different breed of cat” when it comes to vehicle accident cases. A large majority of reported motorcycle accidents involve serious injury or death, so the damages are significant. And although  the accident may not have been the motorcyclist’s fault, the public’s perception of cyclists can make it tough to win the case.

Jurors often have preconceived notions about motorcyclists. They have all seen a cycle operator  sometime somewhere operating his bike in an irresponsible manner. They may feel that all cyclists are reckless thrill-seekers. The irony is that most motorcycle accidents are not the fault of the motorcycle. Numerous studies have shown that the overwhelming majority of car-motorcycle accidents occur because the driver of the car violated the cyclist’s right-of-way. The car fails to see the motorcycle and pulls out in front of the bike, or makes a left turn into the bike. Failing to see the motorcycle is negligence. The car can’t  use “looking but not seeing” as an excuse.

There is really no typical motorcycle rider. They are young, old, rich, not so rich. Some ride for pleasure, others for economic reasons. The interesting fact is that studies that compare the personality characteristics of motorcyclists to other drivers find no significant differences between the two groups.

One of the things a motorcycle accident attorney can do to level the playing field is educate jurors and potential jurors. Motorcylists are just folks who like to ride and who have as much right to be on the road as car, SUV or truck operators.

Edward E. Houseman, Esq.

From the Legal Intelligencer of Monday, August 1, 2009:

The Legal Intelligencer (08/17/2009, Zack Needles) reported, “an Allegheny County Common Pleas judge has called for a new trial in a medical malpractice case, making the rare decision to vacate a jury’s defense verdict and suggesting that the defendant doctor be barred from testifying in the new proceedings.”  According to the Legal Intelligencer, the trial judge said that the pulmonologist “on trial for allegedly failing to make a timely diagnosis of lung cancer lied on the witness stand by claiming she had suspected plaintiff’s decedent . . . had lung cancer all along but that the patient had resisted a biopsy.”  However, the trial judge found this was not true and noted that the doctor’s “own writings” confirmed that she never made such a diagnosis.  According to the Legal Intelligencer, based upon the doctor’s lies a jury had found in favor of the doctor, but the trial judge was not persuaded and found that the verdict was “so against the weight of the evidence as to shock the conscience of the court.”  A new trial has now been granted and the trial judge has indicated that the doctor may not be permitted to testify at her new trial due to the egregious conduct of the defendant doctor.  Because of the Court’s ruling, the plaintiff will now be able to fairly present the case to a jury.

At Liever, Hyman & Potter, P.C., we handle cases involving doctor/hospital errors, surgery errors, pregnancy and birth injuries, misdiagnosis, failure to diagnose and prescription errors.  An experienced attorney for personal injury at our firm can assist you with these types of matters.   If you or a loved one have any questions or concerns about medical care or treatment you may want to contact Liever, Hyman & Potter, P.C., personal injury lawyer attorney in Reading, PA.

From the American Association for Justice News Brief of September 15, 2009:

The Legal Intelligencer (9/14, Passarella) reported, “The Superior Court, in a case of first impression, has thrown out a suit against Rohm & Haas made by the estate of a woman who developed, and died from, a brain tumor years after working for the company. In reversing the trial court in Ranalli v. Rohm & Haas Co., the Superior Court panel ruled the suit was barred by the exclusivity provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Act because the disease manifested 300 or more weeks after Olivia Ranalli worked at the plant.” The Court “also ruled a bar to workers’ compensation coverage doesn’t equal a right to a tort claim.” Personal injury defense attorneys Reading PA will in all likelihood hail this decision as favorable to the Insurance Industry. City personal injury attorneys Reading PA who represent injured workers will find that this ruling is unfair to injured workers.

Our lawyers at Liever, Hyman and Potter include the two co-chairman of the Berks Bar Association Workers’ Compensation Section , Andrew Fick and Adam Levin. This Section includes city personal injury attorneys , Reading , PA and other Berks county lawyers who represent injured workers and personal injury defense attorneys Reading PA and Berks County PA.

September 8, 2009, written by Andrew F. Fick, Esquire of the law firm of Liever, Hyman & Potter, P.C., personal injury attorneys Reading, Pennsylvania.

The Honorable Scott E. Lash of the Berks County Court, Reading, Pennsylvania recently issued an opinion in Coleman, et ux. v. Centre Township, et al. which was published in the Berks County Law Journal on July 30, 2009. The opinion was in support of his order dismissing the township from a lawsuit arising out of an automobile accident on the basis of governmental immunity under Pennsylvania law. Our firm did not represent the victim in this case. The law firm of Liever, Hyman & Potter, P.C., personal injury attorneys Reading, Pennsylvania has handled many successful lawsuits on behalf of injury victims against municipalities and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

The victim was involved in an automobile accident in which his vehicle slid on a township road, causing it to cross into the oncoming lane and strike another vehicle. The victim and his wife sued the driver of the other vehicle. They also sued the township, alleging negligence in the “design, construction, supervision and/or inspection of the roadway.” The victim and his wife retained an expert who determined that the curves in the roadway at the scene of the collision were sufficiently dangerous to require traffic controls, such as a warning sign or blinkers to warn of the oncoming hazard; that the township failed to warn oncoming motorists of the hazardous condition; and that the township was negligent in failing to do so, The Judge concluded that, even so, the victim and his wife failed to establish that the township had a duty to provide traffic control devices at the site because that the expert’s report was insufficient due to the fact that no traffic control studies, and only limited engineering testing, were conducted. He further noted that, even if traffic control devices were present which would have advised the victim to slow down, the victim and his wife had failed to establish a nexus between that and the accident, pointing out that the victim testified in his deposition that he was travelling as slow as 15 miles an hour at the time of the accident and that he did not believe that the accident would have been avoided if he had been driving any slower because of the nature of the wet roadway and the weight of his vehicle.

It is important to promptly hire attorneys to assist in pursuing any type of injury claim. If you are trying to find personal injury attorneys Reading, Pennsylvania, contact Liever, Hyman & Potter, P.C.