|
Newswire - Most recent postsAnnouncementsPeople’s Law SchoolIt’s that time of year again….join up for one of the People’s Law School classes. We have four locations now. Osher Lifelong Learning Institute, www.widener.edu/olli on Tuesday, February 14, 2012 from 1:15 – 2:25 p.m. at Widener University, Exton Campus, PA. Downingtown Area Recreation Consortium, www.darcinfo.com on Wednesday, February 1, 2012 from 7:00 p.m. – 9:00 p.m. at Lionville Middle School, Downingtown, PA. Chester County Night School, www.chestercountynightschool.org on Tuesday, March 20, 2012 from 7:00 – 9:00 p.m. at Peirce Middle School, West Chester and on Thursday, March 22, 2012 at Owen J. Roberts in Pottstown, PA Chester County Life Magazine Runs A Feature Story On Steve And Peter’s Radio Program, Legal Talk, In Their January/february 2012 IssueListen in to Legal Talk By Susan I. Shiber View the full article in PDF format.
As for the jelly beans, Karp represented an automobile accident victim, who was in such pain that multiple pills were prescribed. “We could have merely pointed out that the man took lots of medication,” says Karp. “So what? The jar contains more than 12,000 jelly beans. Each one symbolizes a pill. Each pill costs $79. I poured the entire contents on the floor of the court room and announced that this is how many pills he required in four years since the accident. He was awarded a settlement.” “You have to be interesting to capture a jury’s attention,” adds Peter Hart. “We’re trial lawyers. If we can’t sell a story, we’re less likely to receive a verdict in favor of our client. Drama helps.” Some of that drama is presented each week on Legal Talk, heard Tuesdays at noon on WCHE 1520AM radio. The live call-in show, which is both informative and entertaining, has been on the air for 23 years. As the nation’s longest running legal radio program, topics from car insurance to custody issues, movies to malpractice, novels to negligence, criminal cases to civil suits have been covered. Guests may be famous, infamous, or funny. Local judges, politicians, and educators join critically acclaimed authors, attorneys, and subjects of popular films on the roster. WCHE 1520AM is West Chester andCentralChesterCounty’s only community radio station. From a cast of thousands, here is a selection of some of the most intriguing guests. Jan Schlichtmann became famous in the 1980s when he alleged that chemicals from W.R. Grace and Beatrice Co. had contaminated drinking water in Woburn, Massachusetts, causing children to die. The movie A Civil Action starring John Travolta was based on the case. Karp interviewed Schlichtmann and author Jonathan Harr, whose book resulted in the film. “The attorney turned down two million dollars based on principle,” recalls Karp. “He admitted if he knew then what he knows now, he would have accepted the money.” Karp had the opportunity to reverse roles with one of his former Villanova law professors. John Dobbyn came on Legal Talk to discuss his legal crime novel, Frame Up that tells stories about real folks get caught up in the system’s fuzzy moral contours. “I told him I was going to grade him on his performance,” he chuckles. One of Hart’s favorite shows featured local judge the honorable William P. Mahon. “He presides overChester County Drug Court, a program that stresses accountability and productivity for non-violent offenders coping with addiction,” explains Hart. “Judge Mahon stressed how much taxpayer money is saved by deferring charges and trials while individuals complete rehab.” Both men were pleased to show the real story behind the highly publicized Liebeck v. McDonald’s Restaurants. “This was the most misunderstood case in many years,” suggests Hart. “Susan Saladoff produced a documentary called Hot Coffee and she shared what she learned with our audience.” In short, Stella Liebeck, a 79-year-old woman fromAlbuquerque, was a passenger in her son’s car. She purchased a cup of coffee from McDonald’s drive-through and attempted to open it to add cream and sugar. She spilled the entire cup on her lap and suffered third degree burns on six percent of her body and lesser burns over 16 percent. She had skin grafts, lost 20 pounds and required two years of medical treatment. What came out in the trial is that the restaurant requires its franchisees to serve coffee at 180 to 190 degrees when it should never be more than 140 degrees. At such high temperatures, third degree burns can result in 12 to 15 seconds after coffee touches the body, even through cotton sweatpants, such as those worn by Liebeck. Documents shown in court revealed that more than 700 people reported burns from McDonald’s coffee. The woman’s lawsuit was the butt of late night talk show hosts and people on the street berated her for audacity. Saladoff’s piece presented the truth. “That’s why we do the show,” points out Hart. “Law is mystifying and we attempt to de-mystify it. We keep it simple and try to make sense of what goes on behind the scenes.” One behind-the-scenes guest drew substantial interest. John D. Pistone aka Donnie Brasco is a former FBI agent from Erie. He worked undercover for six years infiltrating the Bonanno crime family. His results convinced FBI leadership that undercover agents are powerful law enforcement tools. Johnny Depp portrayed Pistone in Donnie Brasco, a 1997 film that captured life among Mafia wise guys. Gerry Spence, who gained attention for high profile cases, including the representation of Karen Silkwood’s family, is another colorful personality, one that Karp insists has an ego the size of Texas. Philadelphia-born Gloria Allred, nee Bloom, is equally notable for tales of her time on Court TV. Allred’s colleague Catherine Crier wrote The Case Against Lawyers and came on the radio to criticize current legal system dysfunction and litigation-crazed culture. Every few years, the attorneys invite callers to talk about their favorite legal movie. “To Kill a Mockingbird usually wins,” notes Karp. “Topping the list, too, are 12 Angry Men, Inherit the Wind, and My Cousin Vinnie.” Consistently popular themes address callers’ personal legal problems, such as traffic violations, wills and estates, and penalties for crimes. “We give a general overview and urge callers to contact an attorney,” explains Hart. “If they call off-air, we often help them find an appropriate firm. “We do not do the show to promote Karp & Hart. We do it to edify the public, clarify legal concerns, and disclose misconceptions.” View the full article in PDF format. Legal Talk Every Tuesday
Karp & Hart, PC The New Joint And Several Liability Senate Bill 1131 (act No. 17) A.k.a. “the Fair Share Act”Peter Hart lectured before the Chester County Bench Bar Conference for the Judges and attorneys on the new law dealing with responsibility of negligent defendants when there are more than one.
Act No. 17 which amends provisions relating to comparative negligence, became law on June 28, 2011. The new law is not retroactive. It applies to all negligence causes of action which arise on or after June 28, 2011. It partially (or as some may convincingly argue) repeals the rule of joint and several liability. Under the old law multiple defendants who were found to be negligent in causing one’s injuries and whose negligence was a substantial factor or factual cause in bringing about those injuries, could be held jointly and severally liable and, as a result, any one defendant could be required to pay the entire verdict. Thereafter, they could look to the other defendants for contribution. In essence, a defendant could be responsible for the entire amount of the plaintiff’s award as long as he or she was found to be at least one-percent at fault. The new Act modifies joint and several liability by only holding each defendant liable only for his or her actual percentage of fault as determined by a judge or jury. “…where liability is attributed to more than one defendant, each defendant shall be liable for that proportion of the total dollar amount awarded as damages in the ratio of the amount of that defendant’s liability to the amount of liability attributed to all defendants and other persons to whom liability is apportioned….” 42 Pa.C.S.A. §7102(a)(1). THERE ARE FIVE EXCEPTIONS TO THE NEW REQUIREMENT: 1. Intentional misrepresentations. THE NEW 60% THRESHOLD The major exception is that if a defendant is held to be 60% or more at fault, then he or she can be held responsible for the entire award. Although it is true that some states enacted similar threshold rules, even the most business friendly states still only require that a defendant be 50% or more at fault before being required to pay the entire verdict. Pennsylvania has now surpassed those front runners. Further, Section (a.2), of the Statute permits apportionment of responsibility not just among defendants but also among “non-parties.” However, the language that follows in that paragraph seems to describe non-parties only as other persons who have entered into a release with the plaintiff in respect to the action but have not been made parties to the action. The statute further states that this information (about settling non-parties) shall be transmitted to the trier of fact “upon appropriate requests and proofs” by any party. This language is ripe for judicial interpretation. Is a non-party only a person who settled prior to being sued; was sued in the cause of action and entered into a settlement or could it possibly involve persons or entities who were never brought into the case to begin with but could possibly have been? Section (a.2) also states that nothing in this section shall affect the admissibility or non admissibility of evidence regarding releases, settlements, offers to compromise or compromises as set forth in the Pennsylvania Rules of Evidence. (Pa.R.E. 408 and 42 Pa. C.S.A. §6141). What does this mean? Under the Pennsylvania Rules of Evidence, releases, settlements, offers to compromise or compromises are generally not admissible at trial. How does this affect the new Act 17 statutory language which permits any party “on appropriate request and proofs” to transmit to the trier of facts so that an apportionment can be made. Does that mean that a jury will be provided information as to how much a non-party settling defendant paid or just merely the fact that a non-settling entity paid something? Will a jury then lean more toward the plaintiff or more toward the defendant? The effect of the new law can be illustrated by a simple example: Two defendants involved in an automobile accident combine to cause the injury of a passenger in one of the automobiles. Each driver is found to be 50% at fault. Under the new law, each defendant will have to pay only his “fair share” or one half of the verdict. If the verdict is for one million dollars (think wheel chair bound) and one of the defendants only has $15,000 in coverage but the other defendant has one million dollars in coverage, the plaintiff will only be able to recover $515,000. The victim will be left $485,000 short of that to which a jury determined he was entitled. (Now think wheel chair and incontinent for life). Who is picking up the tab for the other $485,000 needed for her lifetime care? Yes, you guessed it, probably you and your fellow taxpayers. Who will reap the benefit? The insurance companies. But, of course, they will pass those savings on to the public. MISSING FROM THE ACT There is no exception for fraud, recklessness or gross negligence or any requirement in a Dram Shop case that the dram shop must have insurance in order for the rule to apply. There is no exception for other egregious conduct such as illegal sales of alcohol to minors. POTENTIAL CHANGE IN STRATEGIES FOR BOTH It is quite possible that more defendants will be sued to increase the total amount of coverage available in order to make up for the deep pocket defendants who are not held 60% or more liable. Defendants will be more likely to sue each other and point their fingers at each other in order to bring their share below 60%. The change in the law may be more noticeable in strict liability cases involving crash worthiness actions, asbestos actions and other mass tort type cases where the defendant’s products were a minor portion of the plaintiffs’ overall exposures. More cases may likely be forced into trial because the plaintiff may now be forced to look at private assets. Confusion may be created when plaintiff pleads both intentional tort and negligence in the same cause of action. There may be an increase in underinsured and uninsured motorist claims. Plaintiffs are going to have to file UM/UIM claims more often if there are multiple joint tortfeasors who are found less than 60% responsible for the injured party’s harm. In medical malpractice cases the new law might make it less likely for plaintiffs to sue marginal parties due to the expense, but the risk of joinder of these parties by other defendants may be enhanced. The plaintiff will always want to ensure that there is at least a 60% liable party with adequate assets while each defendant will want to diminish his likelihood of being responsible for 60%. What effect will the law have in a case where the plaintiff fractures a leg in an automobile accident and receives medical care but a week or two later, a treating physician is careless and causes additional catastrophic injuries to the plaintiff? Are they joint tortfeasors? Will the 60% rule apply? Before the change in the law, the plaintiff perhaps would have wanted the doctor and the motorist to be jointly and severally liable in order to recover all the damages from the doctor and the hospital. Now plaintiff will argue that they are two separate causes of action. Suburban Life Magazine’s ‘awesome Attorney’ Awarded To Peter Hart – 11/1/2011We are very proud to announce that Peter Hart won the 2011 Suburban Life magazine’s “Awesome Attorney” award for Personal Injury. |
At first glance around Steve Karp’s law office, you can’t miss an enormous glass jar of brightly colored jelly beans. One wonders if the attorney has an insatiable sweet tooth, or is he a fan of President Ronald Reagan. Actually, the candy represents a pivotal conclusion in a personal injury case. Karp & Hart is the only suburban law firm that limits its practice exclusively to personal and medical injury. 
Podcasts
Karp and Hart is a law firm that limits its practice to personal injury and medical malpractice cases. We serve our clients in Philadelphia area locations including West Chester, King of Prussia, Honey Brook, Coatesville, Thorndale, Downingtown, Lionville, Exton, Frazer, Malvern, Paoli, Phoenixville, Devon, Berwyn, West Goshen, Chadds Ford, Kennett Square, Avondale, West Grove, Oxford, Parkesburg, Chester Springs, Coventry and the Main Line. We take most injury and malpractice cases and have worked to serve victims of car accidents, medical malpractice, surgical errors, motorcycle accidents, and more.
Embassy Court - 27 Turner Lane - West Chester, PA 19380 - 610.430.2200
© 2010 by Kart & Hart, PC. All rights reserved.
Site by bluetree