Pa. Supreme Court, Citing Dan Siegel’s Brief, Issues Landmark Car Accident Ruling
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled today that, in car accidents claims against Pennsylvania governments and governmental agencies, “operation of a vehicle” is the continuum of activity from when a vehicle begins its journey until it reaches its final destination. This case will impact every auto accident claim against the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, every municipality, and every governmental agency, such as SEPTA.
In the case, known as Balentine, the Supreme Court specifically cited and adopted the standard suggested by Attorney Daniel J. Siegel of the Law Offices of Daniel J. Siegel, LLC, who authored the Amicus/Friend of the Court Brief for the Pennsylvania Association for Justice. The Opinion reverses 30 years of inconsistent and illogical decisions, and creates a uniform and logical standard for evaluating the responsibility of a governmental entity in motor vehicle accident cases. Our law firm is proud that over the past 13 years since we opened, our cases have protected and expanded the rights of more injured workers and car accident victims than those of any other law firm in Pennsylvania! Last year, our Pennsylvania Supreme Court case expanded the statute of limitations in all uninsured and underinsured motorist cases.
The Opinion in Balentine specifically cited Attorney Dan Siegel’s Brief, “The approach set forth in the Warrick dissent, as advocated for by Amicus Curiae Pennsylvania Association for Justice, does not contradict the ‘intent of the Tort Claims Act to insulate local government agencies from liability.'”
Click here to read the Opinion in Balentine v. Chester Water Authority.
