CIVIL VERDICTS - PREMISES LIABILITY * Estate of Joan DeMarco v. The Marquis - Decedent business tenant of apartment/office complex owner murdered by former employee of defendant in violent assault during office burglary. Plaintiff's estate alleged negligent security theory of liability against defendant. Settlement negotiated with responsible insurance company in excess of One Million Two Hundred Thousand ($1,200,000.00) Dollars prior to trial. * Khaled Bakar v. Home Properties, Inc. - Plaintiff was standing on third floor balcony of friend's apartment owned by defendant, when the floor suddenly collapsed causing plaintiff to fall to ground. Plaintiff sustained fractured ribs, non-displaced tibia fracture and herniated disc, which was treated with physical therapy and multiple epidural injections. Montgomery County jury returned a verdict in the amount of Seven Hundred and Sixty Nine Thousand ($769,000.00) Dollars. Plaintiff filed Motion for Delay Damages which was granted and case was settled for Nine Hundred Thousand ($900,000.00) Dollars. * CIVIL VERDICTS - AUTOMOBILE ACCIDENTS * Riccardo v. Kim - Plaintiff sustained fractured cervical vertebrae at C5-6 level which required two surgeries and metal screws, arising from a two vehicle automobile accident. Out-of-court settlement negotiated with responsible insurance carriers in amount of Four Hundred Thousand ($400,000.00) Dollars prior to trial. * Estate of Robert Kane v. Joseph Falco - Decedent killed while passenger in one-car accident where intoxicated driver lost control of vehicle. Wrongful death claim settlement negotiated with responsible insurance company in the amount of Six Hundred and Sixty Thousand ($660,000.00) Dollars prior to trial. * Vinnie Moss v. Baldi Transportation/Erie Insurance Company - Plaintiff awarded Two Hundred Thirty Five Thousand ($235,000.00) Dollars by jury after trial. Defendant trucking company bankrupt and uninsured. Uninsured motorist claim settlement negotiated with plaintiff's insurance company in the amount of Two Hundred Thousand ($200,00.00) Dollars. * CIVIL VERDICTS - LIQUOR LIABILITY * Gerald & Irene Kane v. Dublin Wine and Spirits and Commonwealth of PA - Plaintiff husband and wife sustained multiple injuries in head-on collision with drunk driver. Husband-plaintiff sustained head injury resulting in brain hemorrhage and coma, with substantial recovery. Wife-plaintiff sustained broken ankle. Out-of-court settlement successfully negotiated against defendants prior to trial. Husband's claim - Two Hundred Forty Thousand ($240,000.00) Dollars. Wife's claim - Ninety Thousand ($90,000.00) Dollars. (Bucks County)* Edward Pisarek v. Adriatric Club - Plaintiff police officer assaulted while on duty by intoxicated bar patron skilled in martial arts. Plaintiff sustained permanent partial hearing loss and multiple lacerations. Non-jury trial verdict in favor of plaintiff and against defendant in amount of One Hundred Fifty Thousand ($150,000.00) Dollars. (Philadelphia County) CIVIL VERDICTS - PRODUCT LIABILITY* Keith Rosenberger v. Galoob Toys, Inc. - Plaintiff sustained temporary partial loss of vision in one eye with increased risk of future glaucoma, when struck in eye by defendants' children's toy, while plaintiff demonstrated newly purchased toy for child. Out-of-court settlement successfully negotiated against defendants in the amount of One Hundred Fifty Thousand ($150,000.00) Dollars prior to trial. (Montgomery County)* Raymond Cost v. Caterpillar, Inc. - Plaintiff sustained partial amputation of his lower leg, when his foot was crushed in an unguarded pinchpoint of rotating couplings inside engine area, while plaintiff was performing maintenance of defendant's heavy trash compactor/metal shearer. Out-of-court settlement successfully negotiated against defendant in the amount of Four Hundred Seventy Five Thousand ($475,000.00) Dollars prior to trial. (Montgomery County)

McMahon, Lentz & Thompson – Driving Under the Influence (DUI)

 

There is no question that Driving Under the Influence (DUI) in Pennsylvania is a serious violation of the Pennsylvania Vehicle Code with potentially severe criminal penalties and a license suspension.

Pennsylvania DUI laws prohibit driving or being in “actual physical control” of a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol that renders him/her incapable of safe driving, or with any amount of an illegal drug, like marijuana, in his or her system.

A person who violates the PA DUI law is guilty of a misdemeanor for a first offense.  Subsequent DUI offenses are treated more severely, and a third DUI  may, in some instances, be a felony of the third degree.

Pennsylvania DUI – Drugs

In Pennsylvania, a person is guilty of DUI if there is any amount of an illegal drug detected in his or her system. That means a person who last used marijuana one week ago, may be guilty of a DUI today based solely on the lingering presence of THC in his or her blood.  And it gets worse.

Under the above scenario, the person would be charged with the highest tier (most severe) DUI and subject to the same penalties that apply to a person who had a blood alcohol content (BAC) level of .16% or higher. Under PA DUI laws, all offenses which involve drugs are subject to the most severe DUI penalties.

Pennsylvania DUI – Alcohol

PA DUI law deems drivers under the influence of alcohol if the person is rendered “incapable of safely driving” as a result of alcohol consumption, or if the person has a blood alcohol content (BAC) level above a .08.

Unlike drug related DUIs, alcohol offenses are divided into three tiers based upon their severity as determined by the person’s BAC. These tiers are as follows:

Tier 1:  General Impairment – Incapable of Safely Driving  (no BAC); or BAC greater than .08%, but less than .10%.          

Tier 2:    BAC greater than .08%, but less than .10%.               

Tier 3:    BAC .16% or higher.

Pennsylvania Accelerated Disposition Program

An individual charged with a first-offense DUI may be eligible for the A.R.D. Program which is requested by your criminal defense attorney through a formal application at or after the preliminary hearing stage. This program is an excellent alternative outcome for persons charged with “Driving While Imbibing” for the following reasons:

1) no jail time

2) no criminal conviction, and

3) minimal license suspension

3) expungement of record

There are certain prerequisites for admissibility into the A.R.D. Program which generally must be met in order for a person accused of DUI to take advantage of the A.R.D. program.

These prerequisites include:

1) no accident involving serious injuries

2) no prior criminal convictions

3) no prior A.R.D. dispositions within ten years

4) no aggravating circumstances in defendant’s interaction with the police

A great advantage of the A.R.D. Program is that the Driving Under the Influence arrest and all police and court records related may be ordered by the Court to be expunged and destroyed upon the filing by defense counsel and Court’s granting of a Motion to Expunge.

In summary, statistically the vast majority of persons arrested by the police in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania are arrested for the offense of Driving Under the Influence. Based on the serious penalties for this offense and license suspension, anyone charged with Driving After Imbibing should retain experienced and aggressive legal counsel.

The track record of McMahon, Lentz & Thompson in representing clients charged with this serious offense speaks for itself, whether in vigorously defending the client in a jury trial or negotiating an A.R.D. disposition or other favorable resolution.

See our DUI Attorney track record >>

(Twelve recent decisions, Not-Guilty)

The information contained herein should not be used as a substitute for personal legal advice. You should contact the Law Offices of McMahon, Lentz & Thompson to schedule a Consultation with an attorney who will speak to you regarding your specific situation.

Desktop Version | Switch To Mobile Version