Pennsylvania Law Monitor : Pennsylvania Lawyer & Attorney : Stark & Stark Law Firm : Yardley, Philadelphia, New York, New Jersey

Too many times we see young clients that have been injured as a result of dog bites that are easily preventable. Studies show that over 4.7 million people per year are injured by dog bites and over 60% of these victims are children.
 
The first line of defense against dog bites needs to come from the owners of the dogs themselves.  Keeping your dog healthy and up-to-date on vaccinations can help prevent aggressive behavior.  It is also important to know your dog’s behavioral tendencies. If your dog starts acting strangely, it may be the sign of illness or infection. Having your pet neutered or spayed will make them less likely to act aggressively. Finally, properly training your animal and obeying your community’s leash laws will help keep your pet under control.

Parents also need to make an effort to teach their children how to avoid dog bites. First, parents should avoid leaving babies or small children alone in the presence of an animal. Teach your children at a young age to respect dogs because any dog will bite if treated improperly. Children should know not to pull on a dog’s ears or tail or to approach it in a threatening manner. Children should also be taught to ask the owner of a dog for permission before petting it.  Some dogs do not respond well to being pet by strangers.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

Negligence should never take the life of another...but unfortunately it does happen.

Some people have been faced with the horrible tragedy of losing a loved one. In my practice I have frequently seen innocent people die because another person was at fault for causing their death. Whether it is a car accident, motorcycle accident and/or work-related accident, the pain of losing a loved one never goes away.

In these situations, I hear people say that no amount of money can bring a person back. And while I agree with this statement, the law, through allowing a recovery of money, does at least provide a means to help a family cope with their loss and a means of getting back to the way of life before their loved one was killed.

The law through the “Wrongful Death and Survival Act” allows a family to recover money against the person(s) at fault for their loved one’s death. This money is presumably the amount of money that would have otherwise been provided to them if their loved one was still alive. Specifically, a family can recover what is called “loss of earnings” and” earnings capacity.” This is a calculation to determine the amount of money which the deceased loved one could realistically have earned considering his or her age, health, training and education, if they were still alive. In addition, fringe benefits such as healthcare insurance and retirement benefits are included in this calculation. The lost value of household services that the deceased would have likely provided is also permitted to be claimed. This is generally calculated by looking at the type of services the deceased person had (such as landscapers) and looking at the amount to replace these services.

As mentioned above, while it is painfully apparent that no amount of money can bring a person back, awarding a family money for the wrongful death of their love one does help a family resume some normalcy in giving them the life they may have otherwise had if their loved one was not killed. Specifically, I have seen this money used for worthy causes such as children’s educations, helping others in similar situations and creating charities to prevent, or create awareness about the same type of accidents or tragedy that killed their family member.

If your loved one has been killed due to the fault of another and you would like to discuss how to recover money in hopes of helping your family have a means to return to a similar life to that of before your loved one was killed, please contact me for a free consultation here in my firm’s Yardley, Pennsylvania office.

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

When purchasing automobile insurance in Pennsylvania, all drivers are required to select either the “Limited Tort” or “Full Tort” option.  Before making this choice, it is important to understand that the option that you select may have a significant impact on your ability to recover for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident. 

The “Limited Tort” option limits recovery to medical and other out-of-pocket expenses only, unless the injuries suffered are extremely serious in nature. The “Full Tort” option allows recovery for pain and suffering and other non-monetary damages, in addition to out-of-pocket expenses, regardless of the severity of injury.

Many people who are injured in a motor vehicle accident and carry “Limited Tort” believe they cannot bring an action for pain and suffering (non-economic damage). It is important to understand that there are several exceptions which allow a “Limited Tort” driver to recover as if they have elected the “Full Tort” option. 

If the driver that causes the accident is convicted of DUI, or is operating an out-of-state vehicle a “Limited Tort” driver can recover as if they were “Full Tort.”  Additionally, if a “Limited Tort” driver is injured while a passenger in a commercial vehicle, they may recover as if they were “Full Tort.” 

If you are injured in a motor vehicle accident and have questions regarding your tort status, please call me here in Stark & Stark’s Yardley, Pennsylvania office to set up a free consultation to review your case.

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

In a recent string of judicial decisions spanning various jurisdictions across the country, courts have held that evidence of a plaintiff’s status as an undocumented immigrant is unfairly prejudicial and generally irrelevant. 

Typically, defense attorneys will attempt to argue that such evidence is relevant and admissible for two purposes.  In cases where the plaintiff is making a claim for future loss of earnings, defense attorneys may argue that evidence of illegal immigration status is relevant in that it may have a direct impact on the plaintiff’s ability to earn wages and the amount of wages earned.  Secondly, defense attorneys may argue that such evidence is admissible for the purpose of attacking the plaintiff’s credibility.

Regardless of the purpose for which a defense attorney seeks to introduce evidence of immigration status, courts must weigh the probative value of such evidence against the risk of unfair prejudice.  In a majority of recent cases, courts have ruled in favor of excluding this evidence after determining that its probative value is slight in comparison to its highly prejudicial nature.  

The most recent example is the case of Republic Waste Servs., Ltd. v. Martinez, 335 S.W.3d 401, 409 (Tex. App. 2011) wherein a Texas court of appeals excluded evidence of a decedent’s immigration status, holding that “the probative value of evidence showing only that the plaintiff is an illegal immigrant, who could possibly be deported, is slight because of the highly speculative nature of such evidence.”  This case comes on the heels of similar decisions in Texas, Florida, California, Delaware, New York, Wisconsin, Virginia, North Dakota, and Pennsylvania.

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

Some people have to pay federal income taxes on their Social Security benefits. This usually happens only if you have other substantial income (such as wages, self-employment, interest, dividends and other taxable income that must be reported on your tax return) in addition to your benefits.

No one pays federal income tax on more than 85 percent of his or her Social Security benefits based on Internal Revenue Service (IRS) rules. Social Security has a sliding scale of taxation depending upon your income. If you file a federal tax return as an "individual" and your “combined income” is between $25,000 and $34,000, you may have to pay income tax on up to 50 % of your benefits.  If your income is more than $34,000, up to 85% of your benefits may be taxable.

If you and your spouse file a joint return, and you have a “combined income” that is between $32,000 and $44,000, you may have to pay income tax on up to 50 % of your benefits. If you and your spouse have a combined income of more than $44,000, up to 85 % of your benefits may be taxable.

“Combined Income” is defined by social security as:

• your adjusted gross income
• + nontaxable interest
• + ½ of your Social Security benefits

Once you start receiving Social Security benefits, whether they are retirement or disability benefits, you will receive a Social Security Benefit Statement (Form SSA-1099) in January, showing the amount of benefits you received in the previous year. You can use this Benefit Statement when you complete your federal income tax return to find out if your benefits are subject to federal income tax.

Social Security Benefits are not subject to state or local income tax. 

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

On November 1, 2011, the Pennsylvania Senate overwhelmingly approved legislation that prohibits motorists from sending, receiving, or reading text messages while driving. The measure sailed through the House, and the Senators voted, 45-5, to send it to Governor Corbett, who is expected to sign it.

Governor Corbett has spoken harshly about seeing drivers navigating their vehicles while their eyes are glued to a cell phone screen. The measure makes it a "primary offense" to send, receive, or read a text message while operating a vehicle, meaning a police officer can stop and ticket a driver seen using a texting device. Sponsors said it should increase traffic safety by making motorists keep their eyes on the road, not on their texts.

"Texting is one of the most dangerous and deadly forms of distracted driving," said Senator Robert Tomlinson (R-6, Bucks), who introduced the measure. "You definitely have to take your eyes off the road to look at your texting device."

The bill sets a $50 penalty for texting while driving. The ban is to take effect 120 days after Corbett signs the measure.

Originally, texting while driving was to be a secondary offense, meaning a police officer could cite a driver for it only if the motorist had been stopped for another offense, such as speeding or running a red light.

Nine states ban the use of handheld cell phones while driving, and 34 states have banned texting while driving.

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link