Drivers with Multiple DUI Offenses in Pennsylvania

January 11th, 2019 by Rieders Travis in Car Accidents, Criminal, Dram Shop Act

Drivers who repeatedly drive while intoxicated, even after getting multiple DUI convictions, put themselves and others at risk. Drunk driving is a major cause of car crashes that kill and maim people throughout Pennsylvania.  In 2017, the department of transportation (PennDOT) recorded 12,040 crashes where a driver was suspected of being impaired, a 2.1 percent increase from 2016. With the holiday drinking season in full swing, Pennsylvania lawmakers have voted to increase penalties for repeat DUI offenders. On December 23, 2018, a law went into effect that increases penalties for those with a third conviction of driving with at least twice the legal limit of alcohol in their system, and for anyone with fourth DUI convictions. In addition, mandatory jail time for repeat offenders is longer. If you or a loved one was injured or if someone has died in a crash involving drunk driving, you may have a claim for compensation for your losses. This includes medical, hospital and rehabilitation costs, lost past and future wages, loss of wage horizon, and other economic expenses.  Compensation may also include the even more significant concept of non-economic damages such as loss…

Dram Shop Act

July 2nd, 2015 by Rieders Travis in Dram Shop Act

Juszczyszyn v. Taiwo, 113 A.2d 853 (Pa. Super. 2015).  Christopher Juszczyszyn appealed from order sustaining preliminary objections in the nature of demurrer against a bar.  The dismissal was appealed and the Superior Court affirmed.  The plaintiff claimed that a patron in the bar assaulted him causing injuries.  An invitee is somebody invited onto public premises as a business visitor.  It is up to the jury to decide the status of the visitor.  The duty of the possessor of the land is to use reasonable care to protect his or her invitees from unknown or non-obvious dangers.  A police officer who enters another's land in his or her official capacity is considered a licensee.  Even if a police officer enters another's land as an invitee the possession of land does not become an insurer of the officer's safety.  The court relied upon earlier authority for the proposition that in this case the police officer was responding to a call in the performance of his duties for the licensee.  The possessors of the property were required to warn the policeman of hidden conditions.  Even if the police officer was an invitee, he…