SchmidtKramer Blog

February 3, 2012 – Pennsylvania enacted a new bicycle safety law on Thursday, February 2, 2012.  The new law now requires motorists to allow at least four (4)  feet of space between their vehicle and a bicycle when passing a bicyclist.

The law also makes it legal for a driver to cross a double yellow line into an opposing lane of traffic, when necessary to allow for the four feet clearance when passing a bicyclist on the right. If there is oncoming cars in the other direction, the motorist would have to wait until it is safe to pass the bicyclist and provide the mandated four (4) feet clearance.

The law further allows a bicyclist to ride slower on the road than the posted maximum speed, and makes it illegal for a vehicle to cut off a bicyclist when the motorist is turning right.

The law become effective in sixty (60) days and is deisgned to reduce injuries which frequently do occur when a bicyclist and driver are involved in a car wreck or car accident. Harrisburg and Central Pennsylvania tend to have more of these types of injury causing accidents due to the rural nature of the area.

Scott B. Cooper, Esquire
Schmidt Kramer PC
209 State Street
Harrisburg, PA 17101
(717) 232-6300 – Telephone
(717) 232-6467 – Facsimile
scooper@schmidtkramer.com
Facebook.com/SchmidtKramer
Twitter.com/TalkToALawyer

February 1, 2012 – As a follow up to yesterday’s posting on a new Pennsylvania law relating to commercial drivers and medical certificates, two people were injured on January 31, 2012 when a tractor-trailer ran into the back of a pickup truck along Route 61 in Saint Clair, near Pottsville, north of Harrisburg in Central Pennsylvania. 

According to reports and police, the crash occurred at about 6:50 a.m. when a tractor-trailer driven by Randall Speilman was traveling south on Route 61  rear ended a Ford Ranger driven by Robert J. Beaver who was stopped for a red light.  After hitting the pickup truck it appears the rig continued south on Route 61, crossed over the median and struck a Jeep Grand Cherokee driven by Melvin C. Fishburn and a Chevrolet Impala driven by Jeffrey Mandel who were both stopped in the northbound lanes of Route 61.

Fortunately, no one was killed but two people were reportedly transported to the hospital with non-life threatening injuries.  If you have any information about the accident please contact the police in St. Clair.

For more on the accident go to the Pottsville Republican Herald at the following link:

http://republicanherald.com/news/4-vehicle-crash-snarls-traffic-in-saint-clair-1.1265685

Do you think that the Commonwealth was wrong to increase regulations to improve safety for drivers of commercial vehicles?

Scott B. Cooper
Schmidt Kramer PC
209 State Street
Harrisburg, PA 17101
(717) 232-6300 – Telephone
(717) 232-6467 – Facsimile
scooper@schmidtkramer.com
Facebook.com/SchmidtKramer

Attached is the link to the Precedential Opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, from last week, in Allstate Property and Casualty Insurance Company v. Squires. The case involves the appeal of a District Court order dismissing a claim for uninsured motorist coverage after an insured was injured in a car accident. The insured Squires was injured after swerving to avoid an approximately two-foot square cardboard box lying in the middle of his lane of travel. The parties stipulated that an unidentified vehicle had to have dropped the box. The District Court held that, as a matter of law, the accident caused by a box which fell from an unidentifed vehicle cannot be considered to have arisen out of the “ownership, maintenance or use of an autmobile.” The case was dismissed on a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. Squires appealed.

The Third Circuit reverses and holds that, as plead, the box falling off the unidentifed vehicle may, as a matter of law, considered to be “arising out of” the ownership, maintenance or use of the vehicle. Relying mainly upon the Pennsylvania Supreme Court opinion in Manufacturers Casualty Insurance Co. v. Goodville Mutual Insurance Co., 170 A.2d 571 (Pa. 1961) the federal appeals court finds that a “but for” test is the necessary analysis to review the pleading for coverage and “Squires at this time only need to have alleged adequately that the unidentifiable vehicle’s use was a but-for cause of his injuries” so the case should be re-instated. He will still need to show the uninsured veihcle proximately caused his injuries.

http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/111664p.pdf

Scott B. Cooper
Schmidt Kramer PC
209 State Street
Harrisburg, PA 17101
(717) 232-6300 – Telephone
(717) 232-6467 – Facsimile
scooper@schmidtkramer.com
Facebook.com/SchmidtKramer