Tips For Handling an Auto Accident

If the inevitable happens and you find yourself the victim of an auto accident, there are certain steps you should take immediately afterwards if you are physically able to do so. Most people are in shock and disbelief the moments after they are involved in an automobile accident and irrational unconventional thoughts may come to mind. Keeping your cool and maintaining a steady mind set is key to being able to make intelligent decisions.

By utilizing the following tips you will be one step further in making your experience a less complicated one.

Assess Your Own Situation -- Whether or not you have passengers in the car with your or not, you need to first take a mental note of where you are and what has happened to you. Ask yourself the following questions, am I experiencing any pain and where is the pain coming from, do I feel faint or like I may black out, also do I notice any broken bones or am I bleeding from anywhere? The best advice any emergency technician would give you is to hold perfectly still if you know that help is most likely on the way in case you have sustained a head or spinal injury.

Help Other Passengers -- If you feel you are able to and you have passengers that are hurt or require immediate attention, you will need to provide as much assistance as possible without injuring yourself any further. If the car is on fire or it is essential to remove yourself and passengers out of the vehicle to prevent death- by all means remove passengers and yourself away from the vehicle as far as possible to prevent further injury.

Call for or Seek Help -- Once everyone has been initially assessed, begin to call for help. If you have a cell phone, immediately call 911. If you have no phone, go out and attempt to flag traffic down to ask for assistance. Do not leave the scene of the accident and when the fire and police arrive be sure to answer all of their questions honestly and to the best of your knowledge.

Contact Your Insurance Company -- Attempt to reach your car insurance carrier as soon as you possible can after the accident. The insurance company will most likely send out an insurance agent or representative out to the crash scene to assess the damage to the vehicle.

It is important to remain calm throughout the time you are still at the accident scene especially if there has been excessive damage to your vehicle. If passengers from your vehicle or another vehicle involved have suffered significant injuries, try to keep them calm as well other victims until help arrives.

By staying calm and level headed at all times and making rational decisions, your unfortunate experience will be over quicker and cause less stress to yourself and to those around you.

Pennsylvania Personal Injury Attorney And Pennsylvania Personal Injury Contributory Negligence

The defendants have the burden of proving the existence of contributory negligence. Defendants must prove that plaintiff acted unreasonably under the circumstances and that her conduct was a substantial factor in causing her injuries. Hanlon v. Sorenson, 289 Pa. Super. 268, 433 A.2d 60 (1981). It is not plaintiff’s burden to prove her freedom from any such negligence.

Contributory negligence can be found as a matter of law only in clear cases. Arco v. Goodstein, 265 A.2d 783 (1970); Dolin v. J.J. Newberry Company, 466 A.2d 174 (Pa. Super. 1983). There can be “no room for fair and reasonable disagreement as to its existence.” Skalos v. Higgins, 449 A. 2d 601, 604 (Pa. Super. 1982.) Plaintiff is required to use only the ordinary care that a prudent person would use under the circumstances. Peair v. Home Associations of Enola Legion #751, 430 A.2d 655 (Pa. Super. 1981).
Defendants often cite the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 343A in concluding that plaintiff was contributorily negligent for an accident. Section 343A protects possessors of land from liability from “known” or “obvious” dangers, “unless the possessor should anticipate the harm despite such knowledge or obviousness.”

To be “known”, the danger must “not only be known to exist, but … also be recognized that it is dangerous and the probability and gravity of the threat and harm must be appreciated.” Berman v. Radnor Rolls, Inc. 542 A.2d. 525, 531 (Pa. Super. 1988), citing, Carrender v. Fitterer, 469 A.2d. 120, 124 (Pa. 1983).

What constitutes an “obvious” danger is an issue of fact for the jury’s determination, requiring denial of a Motion for Summary Judgment. Brown v. Sears Robuck and Company, E.D. Pa; Hutton, J.; July 18, 1990; no. 89-3556; slip op.
“A danger is deemed to be ‘obvious’ when ‘both the condition and the risk are apparent to and would be recognized by a reasonable man, in the position of the visitor, exercising normal perception, intelligence and judgment.” Id., citing Carrender, at 123 (emphasis added.) It is, therefore, crucial to consider the perception, intelligence and judgment of a plaintiff at the time of this accident in order to determine whether the danger presented by the sign frame was “obvious” to her.

In Berman, supra, the Superior Court ruled that the trial court’s refusal to charge the jury on the issues of “known” or “obvious” dangers was proper. In Berman, the plaintiff was roller skating. After he was bumped by another skater, this plaintiff lost his balance, skating through an opening in a railing onto a carpet area and down a six-inch drop off in the floor level. Ultimately he struck his head against a cabinet or shelf which protruded beyond vending machines.
The condition of the rink, the wide entrance, the six-inch drop off and the placement of the vending machines were all apparent. None of the conditions were concealed in any way. Nevertheless, the Court could not say that these conditions would be “known” or “obvious” to a reasonable person in the position of the plaintiff. The court carefully considered that this skater lost and regained his balance while traveling at a good rate of speed. He did not have an adequate opportunity under the circumstances to recognize the danger the six-inch step posed to him.

The Court in Berman concluded that while the skater was charged with the general risks of skating, he was not charged with knowledge of how the risk to him was increased above that caused by normal skating by the physical lay out of the building. Id. at 536.