Pennsylvania Litigation Lawyer & Attorney : Barley Snyder Law Firm : Serving Lancaster, Reading, York, Chambersburg

OSHA has set forth a standard that an employer shall insure that each employee uses protective footwear when working in areas where there is a danger of foot injuries due to falling or rolling objects, piercing the sole or where such employees feet are exposed to electrical hazards. Employers have frequently had questions over when safety shoes are required and who has to pay for them. Generally, it is believed that the OSHA standard will be interpreted with an eye towards the employer’s experience with foot injuries to determine whether there has been a history of foot injuries due to work-related accidents. Where the hazard is particularly great, a history of prior accidents may not be required. OSHA representatives have recently announced that they are “working on the standard to tighten it up,” presumably to create some certainty as to when protective footwear will be required in the workplace. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

State Farm Insurance Company has agreed to pay approximately $80 million to more than 600 policyholders who sued the company for refusing to cover storm damage resulting from the Katrina natural disaster (and an additional $50 million on previously closed claims). Settlement follows an adverse jury verdict in the initial lawsuit to go to trial regarding these claims.

It is noteworthy that the Judge who has assumed jurisdiction for these claims has ordered dozens of policyholders to participate in an experimental mediation program. Hundreds of other homeowners who have not filed lawsuits already have settled their disputes in a mediation program sponsored by the Mississippi Insurance Commissioner George Dale. The interplay between civil litigation and alternative dispute resolution may help bring a measure of certainty and economic efficiency to both insurance companies and claimants in this disaster scenario. Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In a case of first impression, the Pennsylvania Superior Court has carved out an exception to the longstanding practice of barring lawsuits by skiers against ski resorts -- partially on the basis of the release language typically on the back of the lift ticket. It has been held that there is an issue of fact to be determined regarding knowing waiver where the skier was not the one who purchased the ticket, the resort did not claim that the skier or purchaser was informed about the release language, and the skier and purchaser both denied having read the release language. Beck-Hummel v. Ski Shawnee, 902 A.2d 1266 (Pa. Super. 2006). Prior cases were distinguished due to the absence of one or more of the three preceding points, such as the injured party not denying having actually read the release on the back of the lift ticket.

The court also distinguished cases rejecting a claim by persons injured when struck by a foul ball, on the basis that the baseball operators have no duty to warn against common risks inherent in the activities. Another recent case, however, appears to find this baseball foul ball limitation inapplicable when the patron is struck in an area designed to keep their attention from the field of play -- such as where food is being served or activities unrelated to the game are being held.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks