VERDICT NEWS

Who says you can't beat City Hall?

“Bob Smith” and “Mary Jones” (real people whose names we are protecting) were the innocent victims of a high-speed car chase in which a Philadelphia Police Department vehicle was pursuing a stolen car. During the chase, the stolen car hit the plaintiff's vehicle. Mr. Smith was killed; Ms. Jones was seriously, permanently injured.

On their behalf, Donald F. Manchel filed a wrongful death and survival action and a personal injury action against the City of Philadelphia and the police officers, alleging direct negligence by the City. (The police car was unmarked, without flashing lights or siren.)

Under the law, a person cannot pursue a personal injury claim resulting from a police chase. But Mr. Manchel nonetheless took the case to court. The turning point came when the City repeatedly failed to answer the plaintiff's proper questions and did not comply with court orders. Mr. Manchel's continued persistence led to a court-ordered judgment against the City of over $900,000.00.

The City appealed the judgment. Although the Commonwealth Court recognized the City's immunity defense, it also ruled that this immunity did not extend to the City's conduct affecting the efficient operation of the judicial system. Commonwealth Court upheld the lower court's judgment against the City. But the case was not over!

The City filed an appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court--and lost! The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the Commonwealth Court. Nine years later, after many exhausting battles, Mr. Manchel obtained an award of $925,000.00 for his clients.

When the going gets tough, the tough keep going! Persistence pays!

Please note: this verdict is based on an actual case in which Donald F. Manchel, Esq. represented the plaintiffs. It is to be viewed for its interest only and not as an indication of any possible verdict in any other case. Each legal case is different and each verdict is unique.

Settlement with SEPTA

            In January, 2000, Linda Smith, a 47-year old woman, was walking down the steps from her commuter train near her home.  Upon reaching the bottom of the steps from the train, she was confronted with an icy walkway.  Unfortunately, Ms. Smith slipped and fell, fracturing her leg near the ankle.  This injury required surgery, with plates and screws being inserted into her leg and ankle.  Through our investigation, we discovered witnesses who indicated that the area where Ms. Smith fell, virtually no attempt had been made to clear the ice and snow.

            The difficulty with the case stemmed from the legal limitations of suit SEPTA, who owned and controlled the station.  Further investigation revealed with SEPTA had hired an outside contractor to clear the ice and snow, and for whom the limitations issue did not apply.  Depositions disclosed that the snow removal company had been removing snow from this particular station for over 20 years, and in the course of that time had never been required to clear this particular area. Both defendants filed motions with the court to have their cases dismissed.

            Mitchell Clair vigorously opposed the motions.  The Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas agreed with eh plaintiff and refused to dismiss the case.  The defendants, due to the pressure exerted on them by Mitchell Clair, buckled under and made a $150,000.00 offer, which was accepted by Ms. Smith.  The case was settled without the necessity of going to trial.

Case Attorney:  Mitchell Clair, Esquire

$200,000 Verdict Against Hospital

            The plaintiff, Mrs. H, was 81 years old at the time of the following incident.  On or about April 11, 2001, Mrs. H was at Elkins Park Hospital to have some tests performed in the pulmonary-therapy room.  Mrs. H was escorted into the room by a respiratory therapist, at which point she was directe3d to sit down in a chair by a desk to fill out paperwork.  As Mrs. H attempted to sit in the chair, it rolled away from her, causing her to fall to the floor.  The chair was a small, flimsy secretarial chair on rollers and was on a smooth linoleum floor.  Mrs. H was not warned of its mobility, nor was she assisted in getting into the chair, despite the fact that the therapist was aware that she had a leg and ankle condition.  The plaintiff’s expert opined that the chair at issue required little force to initiate movement or rolling away on a floor of this nature.  He also noted that an accident such as this is very foreseeable when a person inadvertently bumps the chair while trying to sit down on it.

            At the time of Mrs. H’s fall, she complained of immediate pain and was seen shortly thereafter in the emergency department of the hospital.  The films at the hospital were read by the ER physician, who initially read them as negative.  Upon review by the orthopedic doctor, a compression fracture at L1 was noted.  Because of continuing complaints, he ordered a lower lumbar bone scan, which showed a sacrum fracture at L5-S1.  A CAT scan of the lumbar spine was completed, which showed a left-sided herniated disc at L5-S1.  Mrs. H then had her first epidural steroid injection, which was ineffective.

            In September 2001, she had two caudal injections, with minimal effect.  Mrs. H’s pain continued.  Both fractures were visible on x-rays a year later, which was indicative of a nonunion, and it was recommended that the plaintiff have a lumbar fusion.  As a result of the fractures, Mrs. H continued to experience significant radicular pain as well as having difficulty walking and standing.  These injuries totally altered her lifestyle.

            The tone of the hospital during the course of litigation was nothing less than arrogant.  The defendant’s approach to settlement was a $10,000.00 take-it or leave-it offer.  The offer was denied and the case proceeded to a jury trial, where the jury awarded Mrs. H $200,000.00.  The defendant’s motions for a new trial were denied.

Trial Attorney:  Jane Marton, Esquire

Railroad crane truck case settled for $1 Million

     In October 1998, a 12-year old minor plaintiff, while riding a bicycle, was struck and dragged 110 feet by an 80,000 lb. railroad crane truck.  The accident resulted in substantial injuries with extensive scarring from the waist to the knees.  As the minor plaintiff crossed the street in the crosswalk, a massive crane truck was going in the opposite direction and made a right-hand turn, striking the child on the bike.

            Both Donald Manchel and Jane Marton took many depositions of witnesses, the crane truck driver defendant, and the defense witnesses.  They were able to show that one of the defense witnesses who stated he was in a truck behind the defendant’s crane truck when the accident happened did not actually arrive on the scene until 15 minutes after the accident occurred!  This was confirmed by the witness who stayed with the plaintiff, giving him aid and comfort after the accident, while the defendant driver was busy calling his insurance company.

            The defendant driver testified at his deposition that he never saw the minor plaintiff and had no idea where the impact occurred.  This was because at the deposition, the defendant driver stated that he was busy looking at the right rear of this monstrous highway vehicle to make sure he could clear the intersection, instead of looking to the left, where he would have seen the minor plaintiff. 

            The case was settled for $1 million, without the necessity of trial, due to the combined efforts of Donald Manchel and Jane Marton.

Case Attorneys:  Donald Manchel & Jane Marton

Weed Whacker Settlement

            Plaintiff, Bob Jones, had just pulled his van, with windows open, into a parking space on a nice summer day when the defendant’s weed whackers, while in the course of their use, propelled many stones and rocks in the direction of the plaintiff, causing a number of them to strike him.  One particular rock came in the car window, struck the rearview mirror, and then ricocheted into the plaintiff’s eye, causing serious injuries. After emergency treatment, Mr. Jones came under the care of many physicians, including a board-certified ophthalmologist, who then performed surgery for a traumatic anterior chamber angle recession of his eye.  The doctor opined that he would have to be watched for the rest of his life, and would be more susceptible to developing relatively intractable glaucoma and other serious eye problems.  He continued to have blurred vision and headaches.

            The defendant weed whacker company held the position that the weed whackers had safety shields and, therefore, the plaintiff couldn’t have been it.  Donald Manchel retained an expert whose opinion was that the safety shield was for the safety of the person using the weed whacker, not for people nearby.  Mr. Manchel also found an eyewitness who agreed with the plaintiff that he was in fact hit by the stones kicked out by the weed whacker and that the stones were also on the driveway and the grass of the bank on the property.

            The offer from the defendant at the settlement conference was $25,000.  Mr. Manchel showed the judge all of the evidence, and a settlement figure of $115,000 was placed on the case.  The defendant agreed to pay what the judge recommended, and the case was settled without the necessity of a trial.

Case Attorney:  Donald Manchel, Esquire