Free Legal Help in Pennsylvania

Commonwealth v. Woosnam, 819 A.2d 1198 (Pa. Super. 2003)

The Commonwealth must prove the driver knew or should have known he or she was involved in an accident.

Cited on: Charged With Hit and Run in Pennsylvania: What the Misdemeanor and Summary Counts Mean · Hit and Run While Driving on a Suspended License in Pennsylvania: The Charges and What They Carry · Fell Asleep at the Wheel, Hit Something and Left: What You Face in Pennsylvania After Calling the Police

Tincher v. Omega Flex, Inc., 628 Pa. 296, 104 A.3d 328 (2014)

A plaintiff may prove a product was in a defective condition by either the consumer-expectations test or the risk-utility test; defect is ordinarily a jury question.

Cited on: Burned When a Disposable Cup's Lid Came Off: Product-Defect Claims in Pennsylvania · Injured at Work by an Exploding Tire in Pennsylvania: Workers' Comp and a Possible Product Claim · Airbags Didn't Deploy When You Hit a Deer in Pennsylvania: Product Claims and Who Pays

Fisher v. Findlay, 319 Pa. Super. 214, 465 A.2d 1306 (1983)

A social guest is a gratuitous licensee; a hidden, unusually steep stairway the hosts knew of was enough to go to a jury.

Cited on: Hurt Helping a Friend Move Equipment on His Property: When Pennsylvania Law Allows a Claim · Paralyzed After a Fall From a Friend's Balcony in Pennsylvania: How Intoxication Affects a Claim

Sharp v. Luksa, 440 Pa. 125, 269 A.2d 659 (1970)

No recovery where there was no hidden defect and the guest knew of the danger.

Cited on: Hurt Helping a Friend Move Equipment on His Property: When Pennsylvania Law Allows a Claim · Paralyzed After a Fall From a Friend's Balcony in Pennsylvania: How Intoxication Affects a Claim

Universal Underwriters Insurance Co. v. A. Richard Kacin, Inc., 916 A.2d 686 (Pa. Super. 2007)

A subrogated insurer stands in its insured's shoes and can recover only if the insured has a legally cognizable claim against the third party.

Cited on: A Neighbor Says Your Lawn Mower Threw a Rock at His Car: Liability and Insurance in Pennsylvania · Uninsured Driver, Injured Passenger: Can the Passenger's Insurer Go After the Driver in Pennsylvania?

Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013)

Any fact that increases a mandatory minimum sentence is an element that must be submitted to a jury and found beyond a reasonable doubt — the mandatory-minimum extension of Apprendi.

Cited on: Jail Exposure and Mandatory Minimums for a Third Pennsylvania DUI

Brezenski v. World Truck Transfer, Inc., 755 A.2d 36 (Pa. Super. 2000)

An employer is vicariously liable for an employee's wrongful act committed within the course and scope of employment.

Cited on: Hit a Parked Car While Working Off the Books: Who Pays the Damage in Pennsylvania

Commonwealth v. Bullick, 830 A.2d 998 (Pa. Super. 2003)

Reckless driving requires a conscious disregard of a known risk, more than the careless disregard of careless driving.

Cited on: Fell Asleep at the Wheel, Hit Something and Left: What You Face in Pennsylvania After Calling the Police

Commonwealth v. Carson, 592 A.2d 1318 (1991) — Superior Court of Pennsylvania

In addition, a conviction for unauthorized use of a vehicle must be predicated on proof that the defendant operated the vehicle without the owner's consent and that the defendant knew or had reason to know that he lacked the owner's permission to operate the vehicle.

Cited on: Recovering a Vehicle Moved Without Clear Authorization

Commonwealth v. Hoke, 381 Pa. Super. 70, 552 A.2d 1099 (1989)

Justification reaches a jury on a leaving-the-scene charge only if the driver offers evidence of a clear and imminent harm.

Cited on: Leaving the Scene Out of Fear for Your Safety: How Pennsylvania's Hit-and-Run Law Applies

Commonwealth v. Huggins, 575 Pa. 395, 836 A.2d 862 (2003)

Falling asleep at the wheel is evidence a jury may weigh on recklessness; the Court left open whether it is enough alone.

Cited on: Fell Asleep at the Wheel, Hit Something and Left: What You Face in Pennsylvania After Calling the Police

Commonwealth v. Lutz, 508 Pa. 297, 495 A.2d 928 (1985)

The district attorney alone decides whether to move a case into Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition; a defendant cannot demand it.

Cited on: Charged With Hit and Run in Pennsylvania: What the Misdemeanor and Summary Counts Mean

Commonwealth v. Mannion, 725 A.2d 196 (Pa. Super. 1999)

Miranda warnings are required only before custodial interrogation, judged objectively from the totality of the circumstances.

Cited on: You Left a Fender Bender, Then Admitted It to Police: What Comes Next in Pennsylvania

Commonwealth v. Sanchez, 848 A.2d 977 (Pa. Super. 2004)

An owner who knew a car was uninsured when it crashed, had it added to a new policy, and signed papers supporting a claim that misdated the accident was properly convicted.

Cited on: Referred for Insurance Fraud After Adding Coverage Right After a Crash: What Pennsylvania Law Requires

Commonwealth v. Shifflett, 335 A.3d 1158 (Pa. 2025)

75 Pa.C.S. § 3806 — which defines a prior acceptance of ARD as a 'prior offense' — is FACIALLY unconstitutional under Apprendi. A prior ARD therefore cannot support the enhanced repeat-offender sentence in 75 Pa.C.S. § 3804. Shifflett had accepted ARD without expressly waiving his Apprendi rights and the ARD was never submitted to a jury.

Cited on: Jail Exposure and Mandatory Minimums for a Third Pennsylvania DUI

Commonwealth v. Sohnleitner, 884 A.2d 307, 2005 PA Super 327

The decision whether to submit a case for ARD rests in the sound discretion of the district attorney. A trial court may not compel admission over the Commonwealth's objection unless the defendant carries his burden of proving the denial rested on criteria 'wholly, patently and without doubt unrelated to the protection of society or the likelihood of a person's success in rehabilitation, such as race, religion or other such obviously prohibited considerations.' If the DA's stated reasons relate to protection of society or likelihood of rehabilitation, the court's inquiry ends; even where the defendant meets his burden, the court is limited to a sufficiency-of-the-evidence review and may not substitute its own judgment.

Cited on: Protecting ARD Eligibility in an Underage DUI With an Accident

Commonwealth v. V.G., 9 A.3d 222 (2010) — Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Where a defendant is convicted of a crime, he is not entitled to expungement of that crime, except as outlined by 18 Pa.C.S. § 9122, which is an extensive statutory provision governing expungement.

Cited on: Understanding an Inactive Case Status and Disposition Date

Dwayne Harvard v. Christopher Cesnalis, 973 F.3d 190 (2020) — Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

We will vacate the District Court’s grant of summary judgment for defendant state trooper Christopher Cesnalis as to the false arrest, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution and Equal Protection claims.

Cited on: Being Arrested at the Scene of a Family Member's Car Accident

Foster v. Westmoreland Casualty Co., 145 Pa. Cmwlth. 638, 604 A.2d 1131 (1992)

On liquidation, title to the insurer's assets vests in the liquidator by operation of law.

Cited on: The Insurer Suing You Over an Old Crash Went Out of Business: What Happens to the Case in Pennsylvania

Fraport Pittsburgh v. Allegheny County Airport, 296 A.3d 9 (2023) — Superior Court of Pennsylvania

to comply with the Landlord Tenant Act, ACAA was required to give a notice to quit.

Cited on: Improper Eviction Notice and Missed Court Hearing Dates

Green v. Independent Oil Co., 414 Pa. 477, 201 A.2d 207 (1964)

Whether a worker is an employee or an independent contractor turns on the right to control the manner of the work.

Cited on: Hit a Parked Car While Working Off the Books: Who Pays the Damage in Pennsylvania

Gregg v. Ameriprise Financial, Inc., 664 Pa. 567, 245 A.3d 637 (2021)

Deceptive conduct under the consumer-protection law's catch-all is judged without regard to intent; reliance and loss are still required.

Cited on: Six Months Without Your Truck: Rental Cutoffs, Repair-Shop Delays and Loss of Use in Pennsylvania

Hamil v. Bashline, 481 Pa. 256, 392 A.2d 1280 (1978)

Once negligence increased the risk of a harm that in fact occurred, the jury decides whether it was a substantial factor.

Cited on: A Test Result No One Told You About: When a Delayed Diagnosis Can Be Malpractice in Pennsylvania

Harsh v. Petroll, 584 Pa. 606, 887 A.2d 209 (2005)

Recognizes crashworthiness liability for injuries enhanced by a vehicle defect beyond those the initial impact would have caused.

Cited on: Airbags Didn't Deploy When You Hit a Deer in Pennsylvania: Product Claims and Who Pays

Holt v. Pariser, 161 Pa. Super. 315, 54 A.2d 89 (1947)

Loss of use, measured by the reasonable rental of a substitute, for the period reasonably required to repair.

Cited on: Six Months Without Your Truck: Rental Cutoffs, Repair-Shop Delays and Loss of Use in Pennsylvania

Klein v. Raysinger, 504 Pa. 141, 470 A.2d 507 (1983)

A social host is not liable for serving alcohol to an ordinary adult; the drinking is the proximate cause.

Cited on: Paralyzed After a Fall From a Friend's Balcony in Pennsylvania: How Intoxication Affects a Claim

Kupetz v. Deere & Co., 435 Pa. Super. 16, 644 A.2d 1213 (1994)

Crashworthiness is a recognized subset of product liability, and the plaintiff must prove the extent of the enhanced injury.

Cited on: Airbags Didn't Deploy When You Hit a Deer in Pennsylvania: Product Claims and Who Pays

Orner v. Mallick, 515 Pa. 132, 527 A.2d 521 (1987)

Restates Klein for an adult guest's own injuries, while allowing a guest under 21 who was served by the hosts to pursue a claim.

Cited on: Paralyzed After a Fall From a Friend's Balcony in Pennsylvania: How Intoxication Affects a Claim

Potter Title & Trust Co. v. Young, 367 Pa. 239, 80 A.2d 76 (1951)

A possessor owes even a gratuitous licensee reasonable care in the activities it carries on.

Cited on: Hurt Helping a Friend Move Equipment on His Property: When Pennsylvania Law Allows a Claim

Reott v. Asia Trend, Inc., 618 Pa. 228, 55 A.3d 1088 (2012)

Highly reckless conduct is an affirmative defense the manufacturer must plead and prove, and it defeats the claim only if it was the sole or superseding cause.

Cited on: Burned When a Disposable Cup's Lid Came Off: Product-Defect Claims in Pennsylvania

Sutch v. Roxborough Memorial Hospital, 151 A.3d 241 (Pa. Super. 2016)

A verdict was upheld where a physician received reports of a suspicious nodule and never told the patient.

Cited on: A Test Result No One Told You About: When a Delayed Diagnosis Can Be Malpractice in Pennsylvania

Washington v. Baxter, 553 Pa. 434, 719 A.2d 733 (1998)

Whether an injury is a serious impairment of body function asks which function was impaired and whether the impairment was serious; permanence is not required.

Cited on: Hit by a Car in Pennsylvania: Who Pays First and How Long You Have