Plaintiff was operating her vehicle in a line of cars following her sister’s hearse to final internment when our client’s employee, operating a snow plow, made an ill-timed left hand turn striking plaintiff’s vehicle, and resulting in an ambulance transport to a local hospital and plaintiff missing the service honoring her sister. Our client admitted liability and our western PA based partner, Michael Lang, tried the case on damages, only. Plaintiff alleged: (1) a permanent injury to her neck and headaches which resulted in severe limitations to plaintiff’s lifestyle including an inability to care for her 8 acre property and her horses, (2) out-of-pocket expenses resulting in a lien totaling $34,000, (3) that she required (and, in fact, received) extensive medical treatment with a neurosurgeon, orthopedic surgeon, neurologist and pain management doctors for her neck injury, including various injections into her neck and skull and narcotic pain medication. Mr. Lang concluded the treatment simply didn’t fit with the impact and the alleged injuries and requested video surveillance which revealed the plaintiff engaging in heavy yard work on her property just 5 months before trial. The video, together with the testimony of the Defendant’s IME doctor, was offered at trial and Mr. Lang argued the plaintiff suffered only a sprain/strain to her neck as a result of the accident and that any pain and treatment after about 8 weeks post-accident was related to plaintiff’s arthritis and not the accident. In response to the plaintiffs’ one million dollar demand, Mr. Lang offered $35,000. At the conclusion of the three day trial and after deliberating less than an hour and a half, the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff totaling just $20,102.00.

Plaintiff, operator of motor vehicle involved in a collision with defendants vehicle, sued the defendant vehicle owners, the driver’s parents, but, not the driver, shortly before the statue of limitations expired. After the statute ran, the defendants’ answer was filed, which averred neither defendant was the operator of the vehicle. Thereafter, plaintiff sought leave of court to amend her complaint to add the driver as a new defendant and the trial court denied same. Ultimately, the trial court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment asserting neither party was the vehicle operator and, therefore, could not be found negligent. Plaintiff appealed the MSJ.

Western PA partner, Michael Lang, argued the appeal before the Superior Court contending plaintiff was not seeking to amend her complaint to correct a misnamed party, but, to bring into the case a new and distinct party (the driver) after the statute of limitations had expired. The Court agreed, prohibiting the joinder of the vehicle operator, ending plaintiff’s suit.

Plaintiff, operator of motor vehicle involved in a collision with defendants vehicle, sued the defendant vehicle owners, the driver’s parents, but, not the driver, shortly before the statue of limitations expired. After the statute ran, the defendants’ answer was filed, which averred neither defendant was the operator of the vehicle. Thereafter, plaintiff sought leave of court to amend her complaint to add the driver as a new defendant and the trial court denied same. Ultimately, the trial court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment asserting neither party was the vehicle operator and, therefore, could not be found negligent. Plaintiff appealed the MSJ.

Western PA partner, Michael Lang, argued the appeal before the Superior Court contending plaintiff was not seeking to amend her complaint to correct a misnamed party, but, to bring into the case a new and distinct party (the driver) after the statute of limitations had expired. The Court agreed, prohibiting the joinder of the vehicle operator, ending plaintiff’s suit.

Our partner, Mike Lang, defended the interests of homeowners alleged to have neglected to erect a railing on their entrance porch at their home of 37 years. The mail delivery plaintiff placed envelopes in the mailbox, then placed a box on the porch by the defendants’ front door, as it wouldn’t fit in the mailbox. As plaintiff stood up, he pivoted to his left, fell off the porch, and sustained a lacerated kidney requiring a five day hospitalization. Plaintiff contended as an invitee, he was owed a high duty of care and that Mike’s clients breached that duty by not having a railing on the right side of the porch where the mail slot was located (there was a railing on the left). Mike presented evidence confirming the local building code did not require a railing and argued the accident was completely a result of the plaintiff’s own carelessness. The jury of nine women and three men agreed and returned a defense verdict in less than nine minutes.