Pennsylvania’s Castle Doctrine

The Castle Law Doctrine a common law doctrine of ancient origins which declares that a home is a person's castle.

The Pennsylvania Legislature suggested we modify the exists laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania based on the following concepts:

1)             a home is a person's castle

2)             Pennsylvania guarantees that the "right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned."

3)             people have a right to expect to remain unmolested within their homes or vehicles.

4)             no person should be required to surrender his or her personal safety to a criminal

5)             no person should be required to needlessly retreat in the face of intrusion or attack outside the person's home or vehicle.

As a result the following modifications to Title 18 were enacted to, in essence, provides that a person no longer needs to retreat if the that person is not engaged in a criminal activity; not in possession of an illegal weapon; the person acting has a right to be in the place where he was attacked; the person acting believes it is immediately necessary to do so to protect himself against death, serious bodily injury, kidnapping or sexual intercourse by force or threat; and the person against whom the force is used displays or otherwise uses a firearm (or replica of a firearm) or any other weapon capable of lethal force.

The law now has a presumption that deadly force is immediately necessary to protect himself against death, serious bodily injury, kidnapping or sexual intercourse compelled by force or threat if the person against whom the force is used is in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering a dwelling, residence or occupied vehicle; has unlawfully and forcefully entered a dwelling, residence or occupied vehicle; or is or is attempting to unlawfully and forcefully remove another against that other's will from the dwelling, residence or occupied vehicle and the person acting knows or has reason to believe that the unlawful and forceful entry or act is occurring or has occurred.

As legislatures tend to do, there are exceptions to the presumption.  The presumption does not apply if the person against whom the force is used has the right to be in the dwelling, residence or vehicle; is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence or vehicle; is a child or grandchild or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of the person; if both parties are engaged in a criminal activity or is using the dwelling, residence or occupied vehicle to further a criminal activity.  Of course, you cannot use this presumption against a peace officer acting in the performance of his official duties and the actor using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a peace officer.

A nice addition to the law provides if the person using force satisfies the requirements of the law regarding force and prevails in a civil action initiated by or on behalf of a perpetrator against the actor, the court shall award reasonable expenses to the actor. Reasonable expenses shall include, but not be limited to, attorney fees, expert witness fees, court costs and compensation for loss of income.

PJRLAW: Tort Reform?

PJRLAW: Tort Reform?: " Section 7102 of Title 42 of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes was amended recently to modify the application of a legal concept kn..."

Tort Reform?

     Section 7102 of Title 42 of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes was amended recently to modify the application of a legal concept known as joint and several liability.  In essence the theory of joint and several liability provides if multiple defendants are named in a lawsuit and the plaintiff is awarded damages, the plaintiff can go to any one of the defendants and collect the judgment.  The defendant who pays the judgment has the right to pursue the other defendants for their “share.” 

     The new “Tort Reform” called “The Fair Share Act” provides that except in certain circumstances, each defendant shall be liable for only that proportion of the total dollar amount awarded as damages in the ratio of the amount of that defendant's liability.   So in essence, each defendant only pays their fair share.  

     Joint and several judgments will continue to be entered in favor of the plaintiff and against a defendant in cases of

(i)      Intentional misrepresentation case.

(ii)     An intentional tort case.

(iii)    Where the defendant has been held liable for not less than 60% of the total liability apportioned to all parties.

(iv)    A release or threatened release of a hazardous substance under section 702 of the act of October 18, 1988 (P.L.756, No.108), known as the Hazardous Sites Cleanup Act.

(v)     A civil action in which a defendant has violated section 497 of the act of

April 12, 1951 (P.L.90, No.21), known as the Liquor Code.

     If a joint and several judgment is entered against a defendant that defendant pays more than their pro rata share of the judgment, they may still pursue the other defendants for contribution.

No expectation of privacy in the world of Social Media???

Rane Zimmerman recently learned that there is no expectation of privacy in the world of Facebook or MySpace and posting photos there can cost you a lot of unexpected grief and possibly a great deal of money.

While employed by Weis Markets, Inc., Rane  was operating a forklift when he had an accident which caused injuries to his left leg.  Rane claimed lost wages, lost future earning capacity, pain and suffering, scarring and embarrassment  as a result of the accident. 

Attorneys for Weis saw in the public portion of Rane’s Facebook page that his interests included “ridin” and “bike stunts” and his MySpace page contained recent photographs depicting Zimmerman with a black eye and his motorcycle before and after an accident. There were also photographs of Rane wearing shorts clearly displaying his scar from the Weis accident. 

So what's the big deal?  Well, during Rane's deposition he claimed never wears shorts because he is embarrassed by his scar. Based on the contradictory information between Rane's deposition and the publicly available portions of his Facebook and MySpace pages, Weis sought access to the private portions of his MySpace and Facebook accounts by the disclosure of Rane's passwords, user names, and login names.  The request was granted.

The Court found that Rane had voluntarily posted photographs of himself to share with others, therefore cannot now claim a reasonable expectation of privacy. 

Remember Facebook and Myspace websites are public domains.  As Judge Saylor pointed out "By definition, a social networking site is the interactive sharing of your personal life with others; the recipients are not limited in what they do with such knowledge."… "With the initiation of litigation to seek a monetary award based upon limitations or harm to one's person, any relevant, non-privileged information about one's life that is shared with others and can be gleaned by defendants from the Internet is fair game in today's society."

To Review A Full Copy of Judge Saylor's Opinion - CLICK HERE

10 More Things I Think I Think...

1.      I think Charlie Sheen has a great lawsuit against his former employee for breach of contract and a spectacular case for a breach of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Sad... But true!

 Click on Photo For Lawsuit Details

2.      With all this rain, I think building an ark just may end up being a good idea.

3.      Is it time to forgive Tiger Woods.  It's amazing how many people started watching golf or playing because of Woods. Much like Mike Tyson and boxing.  Can't remember the last fight I watched that didn’t feature Tyson.  

4.      The PA Liquor Control Board is think selling bottles of liquor in kiosks in supermarkets… Now that I no longer own a bar!   Seriously... grocery shopping IS a pain but easier access to booze?  Do we really need that? 

 Click on Photo For Additional Article

5.      Looks like EVERYONE was celebrating the Osama bin Laden’s killing

6.      Since I touched on the Royal Wedding… What was with those hats???  Do they break all the mirrors before a Royal Wedding?

7.      The “May 21, 2012 Judgment Day” is came and went…  I actually got a letter in the mail asking me to “Save the Date”  Hmmm…  Who are these people???  

8.      With the new Judgment Day (October 21st) coming up I’m wondering if we all have our priorities straight…  An Abbeville, South Carolina man was on his way to get a haircut, when he ran out of gas. He ends up walking the rest of the way into town for that haircut and rather than get gas, he buys a lottery ticket.  The scratch-off ticket he bought ended up being a $200,000 winner.  Bet he’s hoping the zealots are wrong!

9.      Many of us know that when a land developer wants to build houses, the scariest thing is to find bog turtles, some protected flower or artifacts.  Those things can stop you dead in your tracks… UNLESS you’re digging for natural gas in the Marcellus Shale region.  Turns out an excavation at a Westmoreland County (Pennsylvania) site once occupied by Monongahela Indians produced abundant evidence of two villages and allowed researchers to piece together the violent end of the later settlement at the hand of invaders who sacked it, massacred its inhabitants and burned houses and food stores but when researchers returned they found a drill rig and catchment basin sitting on half the village.  Turns out that while we don’t even tax those drilling companies for what they pull from the ground, Pennsylvania's laws offer little or no protection for archaeological resources.  So maybe if all you land developers (those of you still left) keep a drill rig handy you can bypass all that red-tape while you dig out those pesky bog turtles, protected flowers and artifacts.

10.  Central PA has some amazingly generous people.  I want to thank you all for making Jump Street’s 10^th Annual Derby Day Fundraiser a huge success.  We have even hit the Washington DC social scene!

 Click on Photo For Washington DC Story Link

Check The Box...

Employers beware!

The City of Philadelphia has adopted a new trend in employment law.  The City's "Check the Box" rule, in essence, provides that an employer cannot inquire whether a prospective employee has ever been convicted of a crime. 

About one in four adults, or 65 million people across the country, has a criminal record, which can often make it difficult for those who are also unemployed to find a job, as many Philadelphia residents can imagine.

A recent report from the National Employment Law Center showed that many employers, including large companies such as Domino's Pizza or Bank of America, will announce job openings that often exclude applicants with a criminal record. One employment ad from Bank of America, for instance, states "candidates must be able to pass: background check (no felonies or misdemeanors)."

Another study conducted last year revealed 92 percent of employers may dismiss some or sometimes all applicants who have a criminal conviction. According to the Philadelphia Inquirer, jobseekers in Philly are even required to check a box on job applications when asked whether they have been arrested or convicted for a crime.

However, the City Council is seeking to pass a "ban the box" ordinance that will remove the box from both online and paper job applications. Employers would also be prohibited from asking candidates about their criminal history until after their first interview, which is when they are allowed to run any background checks and ask any questions related to the applicant's criminal record.

"[The ordinance] requires the employer to give candidates the opportunity to be judged strictly on their merits during the application and the first interview ..." explained William Nesheiwat, the director of legislation for City Council member Donna Reed Miller, who sponsors the measure. "Our goal is to create something that helps the individual with a record but does not hurt businesses and their clients."

Criminal Records May Prevent Jobseekers From Finding A Job  By Erline Aguiluz

Seemingly with the passage of that ordinance, the City Council and Mayor added one more thing for employers to be concerned with when trying to locate a competent & productive new hire.

Those employers concerned about hiring ex-cons - like a bank, security company or anyone that needs to bond their employees - can take solace that the ordinance allows you to ask that same question after the first interview.

Interesting law which intended to help ex-cons secure employment but will likely result in a lot of wasted employer time.  Hopefully the trend, in its current state, will not continue.

What do you think?

An interesting day….

I was at a meeting yesterday where a gentleman from a trade association (who I will not name to protect the ….  Not sure what word to use here but innocent is definitely not the right word).  This gentleman was discussing why business owners should  join his association.  He went on to seek the support of local business owners to help pressure legislators into passing what he called reforms to the current legal system.  Explaining that trial lawyers needed to be controlled. 

Between the speaker and the associations website, they addresses many issues such as joint and several liability, products liability, forum shopping and filing of frivolous law suits. 

The association has targeted comments made the Philadelphia Common Pleas Court judge who runs their Complex Litigation Center.  The judge basically invited lawyers representing plaintiffs to file their actions in Philadelphia’s Complex Litigation Center.  She went on to note that the increase in suits would increase revenue to the court as well as the city and local businesses.  The speaker also noted that a person who fell in a Hershey Pennsylvania (Dauphin County) sports arena sued in Philadelphia County based on the premise that the Hershey based sports team played a sports team in Philadelphia County several times a year.  These were his examples of abuses of the system. 

Oddly, these are the rules…  It called venue… 

Rule 2179 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure provides:

(a) Except as otherwise provided by an Act of Assembly, by Rule 1006(a.1) or by subdivision (b) of this rule, a personal action against a corporation or similar entity may be brought in and only in

 (1) the county where its registered office or principal place of business is located;

 (2) a county where it regularly conducts business;

 (3) the county where the cause of action arose;

 (4) a county where a transaction or occurrence took place out of which the cause of action arose, or

 (5) a county where the property or a part of the property which is the subject matter of the action is located provided that equitable relief is sought with respect to the property.

(b) An action upon a policy of insurance against an insurance company, association or exchange, either incorporated or organized in Pennsylvania or doing business in this Commonwealth, may be brought

 (1) in a county designated in Subdivision (a) of this rule; or

 (2) in the county where the insured property is located; or

 (3) in the county where the plaintiff resides, in actions upon policies of life, accident, health, disability, and live stock insurance or fraternal benefit certificates.

These rules may be modified by the legislature at any time.  In fact, the legislature found is appropriate to modify them for medical malpractice cases, limiting venue to the county where the action arose.

There are other rules that lawyers can use to “remove” a case from the wrong court, specifically Rule 1006(e).  The inference that venue (or forum) shopping is an abuse of the system is a frightening commentary from any association.  Associations seeking to “protect” consumers, business people, their insured, themselves should look to the legislature to modify the rules.  If plaintiff’s lawyers play within the rules how can it be an abuse?  You may not like the result, until you’re  a plaintiff and want to be in a different venue but until the rules change – like they did for malpractice matters – there are a lot of places you can be sued and you can file a lawsuit. 

By the way, this is no different than Cameron County and Potter County — those courts figured out that the local court system can make extra money by hosting out-of-county divorce cases even where venue may not be properly placed in their counties.  Their extremely low filing fees for divorces makes them attractive to divorcing spouses who want to save money compared to what they might have to pay to file their cases in the proper venue.  However Cameron County and Potter County will typically look to transfer your case if issues arise. 

I didn’t hear that gentleman expressing concerns about this tactic, which is an abuse of the system.  I guess divorcing couples looking to save a buck don’t do too much to fund Political Action Committees!

Kind of makes you really think about the motives,,,