Blog

With fall here and the cooler weather coming with it, I can always bet that Barley and Guinness will want to be outside more than they will want to be inside. The boys love the cooler weather. They run, jump and play more outside in the fall and winter months. Sometimes I have a hard time getting them to come inside for the night.  I have to go out with my flashlight and hunt them down to get them to go to bed.  I sometimes feel like I’m out snipe hunting, but eventually they do come in. I think that the boys think it’s a game they get to play with me where I go one way and they take off the other.  I know they have their own way of communicating with one another. They seem to laugh a lot at me when I’m out hunting for them (it must be dog humor). Pretty soon the boys will be getting to go up to Seven Springs with us more often. The trails and the paths around the springs are so beautiful this time of year and make for the perfect walk. This past weekend was Mother Earth Day Festival at Seven Springs. Snipe hunting was talked about one year. It is an interesting event. Log onto 7springs.com to learn more about this festival. If you’re into keeping the planet clean or you want to know more about the topic, this is something you might want to attend.  They offer a lot of interesting ideas. So enjoy fall with your pets and maybe you can learn how to live off the grid by attending future Mother Earth Day Festivals. Bark on, Bordas dog nation. Bark on.

Before he fought Apollo Creed, Rocky Balboa’s immortal trainer, Mickey Goldmill, knew what to tell him. Mickey told Rocky that he would “eat lightning, and crap thunder.” He told a young, unknown boxer that with the right preparation, he would become “a very dangerous person.” A great trainer has a way of telling his fighters exactly what they need to hear, at exactly the right time. Rocky Balboa came from nothing, and got a fight against the world champion, Creed. Rocky had the talent and the skill. What he needed was the confidence and belief that he could win the fight. Mickey gave him exactly what he needed, at just the right time. The result was a club fighter going the distance against the World Champ, in Rocky I. So what would Mickey say to tonight’s combatants? Many are saying that tonight’s presidential debate will be the most watched event in the history of television. Certainly as big an event as any boxing match ever staged. The stakes Monday outweigh any ninety minutes we’ve ever seen — on the line is nothing less than the US Presidency, control of the world’s most powerful military, and the title: Leader of the Free World. (Image retreived: USA Today) In addition to being a fictional character, Mickey died in Rocky III. So we can’t ask his advice on this clash of the titans. But we can wonder what he might say, and start by asking ourselves, what does each of tonight’s debaters need to hear to win? For Trump, I think the answer is easy and Mickey could give it in one word: behave. Over the last several months, Trump has been painted as a monster. The message “unfit for the Presidency” has been hammered home by Clinton and her myriad surrogates. “Dangerous,” “unhinged,” “reckless,” and “pathological” are all words the Democrats have sought to hang on Trump. So how does he win? Easy. Just behave. Act completely normal, reasonable, and calm for the whole debate. Trump can benefit from the low bar set for him. If he doesn’t behave awfully, insulting people, obviously lying, or otherwise acting the fool, he doesn’t necessarily prove he should be President, but he proves his critics wrong. That could be enough to see him declared the winner of the debate and put the Clinton campaign on the defensive for the rest of the campaign. If Mickey was in Trump’s corner, he’d be telling him over and over again: “just behave, Donnie! Stay cool and don’t let her rattle you! If you act like you belong here it’s all yours.” I don’t know if Trump will listen, but I believe that is what his advisers have been telling him leading up to the debate. What about Clinton? What would Mickey tell her? First of all, the whole situation would be culture shock for Mickey — a notorious sexist. When Adrian started showing up at the gym, Mick said “what’s with this domestic stuff? Tend to business!” But if we get Mick past the traditions of his era, he’d probably be happier to have Clinton as his fighter. That’s an easy call, because above all, Mickey hated laziness, showboating, and wasting time. When Rocky started training in a flashy, Trumped-up joint in Rocky III, Mick called it a “house of ill-repute.” Surrounded by dancers and media and a carnival atmosphere, Mick wanted to “go back to the old gym and get some blood and sweat and tears around us.” When you think about Rocky’s disastrous preparation for his first fight against Clubber Lang in Rocky III, it’s hard not to think today that the flamboyant gym, full of ring girls and media, was designed by Donald Trump. But Clinton still has to come out and fight. She needs a plan and cannot count on simply knowing more, or being more qualified. The plan Mick would create for her is the one that exploits her opponent’s greatest weakness. In this case, that is Trump’s pride. Trump may not be a wizard on public policy or facts and figures, but that won’t lose him this debate: George W. Bush became President despite being thoroughly outmatched by Al Gore on policy details. Trump lacks the experience in TV debates that Clinton has, but unlike her, he is a great performer. His rallies, his TV shows, his countless appearances in front of any camera that would have him testify to his ability to hold an audience and appear to be what they want to watch. His one weakness is his pride and his insecurity — he hates to take even a modest punch. Trump simply cannot stand to be attacked — not on any matter, great or small. He tells people all the time, “you hit me, I hit back.” He always has to prove himself against every slight. His allies call it “counterpunching,” but they know it could be his fatal flaw as a fighter. To win, Clinton just has to agitate Trump. Get his back up with a little comment here and a quick joke there. If she can, even for a moment, make Trump feel as though he is being laughed at or insulted, there will no longer be any worry that he stays calm, or “presidential.” When his pride is at issue, Trump goes off script and on the attack — wildly swinging to avenge his wounded self-image. So Mick would tell Clinton what he told Rock in Rocky II, the rematch with Apollo: this guy “wants to bury you, he wants to humiliate you, he wants to prove to the whole world that you was nothing but some kind of a freak.” Despite being the nominal favorite, Clinton must debate like the underdog, attackingand working to get inside Trump’s guard and under his skin so she can wound his precious pride. If Clinton can do that, Trump will quickly hang his chin out and the well-prepared Clinton will put him on the canvas fast. Unlike the calculating Clinton, Trump will debate “in the moment.” If he sees himself as having lost a point, he will go crazy trying to get it back, and any preparation he’s been able to absorb goes out the window. On the other hand, if Clinton takes a hit, she’ll simply absorb it. What’s one more blow to her at this point? The fight of the century and it’s just twelve hours away. Who will listen to their trainer? Who will swallow their pride and fight the fight they need to fight, instead of the fight they want to fight? We’ll know late Monday night.

It’s been the basis of many laughs over the years and people are fascinated with the creation of caricatures. We’ve all been somewhere and stopped to observe the artist creating a masterpiece in the form of caricature. Perhaps, you too, have had the opportunity to have this done over the years. They say “a picture is worth a thousand words.” Well, a caricature must be worth a heck of a lot more. These pictures generally will amplify certain characteristics of the subject and exaggerate them in such a way as to create a comical or distorted and unsightly type of effect. When I think of a caricature, I generally think of an amusement park or walking the boardwalk at some beach, but this past weekend, I attended a wedding and interestingly, this was some of the guest entertainment and certainly proved to be fun.  I did not realize that this has actually become a normal practice at parties as it had been awhile since the last wedding I attended. Meet my caricature family: Now, if we can’t laugh at ourselves, then we must not be very happy people. I must say, this was so much fun, not just for us, but for every guest in attendance no matter their age. In about three minutes, your party favor was complete with its own caricature of the bride and groom dated on the back for you to take home as a keepsake. The use of caricatures has been around since at least the 16 th century and often was used to ridicule public figures and have remained a typical form of poking fun at those in the public domain. My guess is the reason it has remained such a form of popularity is obvious—who doesn’t enjoy a good laugh? Now, setting aside the perhaps distasteful versions that inevitably exist over the years and could be potentially hurtful, most of us just like a good laugh and look forward to having a little fun. I mean, after all, if we can’t laugh at ourselves, then perhaps we should learn to relax just a tad and take some time to stop and smell the roses. May you find laughter and joy within yourself every single day!

Few among us would argue the fact that in the past 20 years or so, youth sports has seemingly exploded in popularity. Many of us grew up with Little League Baseball being pretty much the only organized sport available in our home towns.  By contrast, the youngsters of today have more sports and teams to pick from than I could ever have imagined 40 years ago.  Baseball has been joined by football, hockey, soccer, softball, volleyball, lacrosse, and my personal favorite, basketball.  Kids 6 years old and younger are now competing in all of these areas, and by the time they reach the fifth grade they are being recruited to play with various “travel teams.”  For the most part, I think all of this is good for our young people.  I fear, however, that if things don’t change, we may be in for a serious reduction in the opportunities for our kids to participate in competitive sports. I’ve been a basketball official since 1985.  My first training class was held on the day after my daughter was born.  It’s been in my blood ever since, and it’s hard for me to imagine taking off the stripes and putting my whistle down for the last time.  But at 60 years old and counting, I know that day can’t be too far off.  The problem is this:  as I look around the room during the meetings of our local officials’ association, I see more people who are close to my age than I do young folks.  Don’t get me wrong; there are young people who are moving up the ladder in the ranks of basketball officiating.  It’s just that for every one of them, there are three “veterans” who will be hanging it up within the next five years.  Combine that fact with the explosion in the number of teams and leagues in the Ohio Valley, and you can see the problem.  There simply aren’t enough referees available to cover the games being played. Five years ago, there wasn’t a single game, at any level, that had to be cancelled due to the lack of officials available to work the game.  This past season (2015-16), schools were forced to cancel more than 50.  Fifty times when children were disappointed; when parents missed the chance to see their kids play.  Fifty times when there just wasn’t anyone available to work the game.  And my guess is it will be worse this year. I’ve never understood why we aren’t absolutely buried in college students looking to take the officiating training course so they could earn some extra money during the year.  The course takes 10-12 weeks, one night per week for 2-3 hours per night.  Upon completion of the course, the student is eligible to work all levels of basketball except high school varsity in both West Virginia and Ohio.  Now, for you college kids who may be reading this, here comes the good part.  You can work at your own pace.  One night a week or seven days a week, it’s your choice.  Each time you are scheduled you can expect to work two, and sometimes three games.  You generally start by 5 p.m., and you are done by 7-7:30 p.m.  And you get paid, in cash, on the spot.  That means you can walk away with $50-$75 in your pocket each day you work, and you can work up to seven days a week during the season.  You do the math.  During the season, an official working only grade school and junior high games can make $500 or more a month working only three days each week. We are in desperate need of young people to get involved in basketball officiating here in the Ohio Valley.  It isn’t just about the money; it’s about the love of the game, and the desire to help our youngsters learn the valuable lessons that only competitive sports can teach.  If officiating is something you might be willing to give a shot, please get in touch with me.  You can email me at jearef@aol.com, or call me at 304-639-7272.  Give it a shot.  You just might discover you love it.

In the wake of a few fatal crashes in Florida and China involving Tesla’s Model S sedans, and as Uber goes live in Pittsburgh with self-driving cars, the federal government, in the form of the U.S. Department of Transportation, is poised to issue a barrage of new regulations aimed at the technology companies and automakers involved in autonomous transportation. The unprecedented manner in which these regulations are being promulgated, in advance of the technology being widely deployed, highlights the manner in which autonomous driving technology has rapidly ascended from science fiction to Google "moonshot" project to a crowded marketplace poised to radically transform our society in the coming years. In fact, Lyft cofounder John Zimmer recently issued a long diatribe in which he declared that most of his ride-hailing company's cars would drive themselves in just five years. Traditionally the Department has sets guidelines for automakers who have vehicles on the road and then used recalls to address defective cars. However, in this instance, faced with a growing number of self-driving car tests on roads across the country and rapidly expanding use of (somewhat concerning) driver assist technology, the DOT will require any new tech to meet a 15-point safety assessment. The DOT is also considering expanded powers to allow administrators to limit the deployment of self-driving vehicles and will issue model policies for states aimed at developing a cohesive set of national regulations for self-driving vehicles. Moreover, government officials have made it clear that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration will have the power to take any vehicle whose technology poses a safety risk off the road, including those that utilize semi-autonomous driving systems - ones in which the human continues to monitor the road and perform some of the driving tasks. In an editorial posted on the website of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, President Obama commented that "egulation can go too far,” and allowed that some argue government "should stay out of free enterprise entirely, but I think most Americans would agree we still need rules to keep our air and water clean, and our food and medicine safe. That’s the general principle here. What’s more, the quickest way to slam the brakes on innovation is for the public to lose confidence in the safety of new technologies." Ford, Google and others are currently testing some form of self-driving cars in California. Google is also road-testing its autonomous fleet in Texas, Arizona and Washington. Testing of Ford’s technology continues in Michigan, while Uber recently began picking up passengers in Pittsburgh in a first-of-its kind experiment. Hopefully the new regulations being promulgated provide adequate guidance to ensure the safety of people interacting with this new technology while retaining ample flexibility to continue to allow this rapidly developing technology to progress to a point where it can become mainstream.

You have probably already seen Uber’s prototype driverless vehicles around town as they are hard to miss with its rooftop sensors and communications equipment. Uber began accepting passengers last week.  For now, an Uber employee stays behind the steering wheel to intercede if the car’s self-driving system makes a mistake or encounters a complication.  The operators are instructed to loosely grip the steering wheel at all times and must be ready to take over immediately at any time. Pittsburgh was chosen as a test city for a variety of reasons.  Pittsburgh is home to Uber's new Advanced Technologies Center, which is staffed by many former Carnegie Mellon University researchers. Moreover, it is a challenging place to drive with its combination of bridges, tunnels, one-way streets, bicyclists, bad weather, and potholes.  "We like to call Pittsburgh the double-black-diamond of driving," said Raffi Krikorian, leader of Uber’s Advanced Technologies Center, using a term for an extremely difficult ski slope. "If we really can master driving in Pittsburgh, then we feel strongly that we have a good chance of mastering it in most other cities around the world." Local transportation activists say they support Uber's effort. "People are bad at driving," said Scott Bricker, executive director of the bicycling advocacy group Bike Pittsburgh. "Recently, a Pittsburgh bicyclist posted video of a self-driving Uber test car giving him space and passing at a slower speed in contrast to a car driven by a person.... If you ask me, taking the human factor out of driving can't happen fast enough." However, not everyone is excited about the new development, particularly those individuals who derive income from driving.  “When the self-driving-car revolution firmly takes hold, there will be carnage, according to Wolf Richter of the Wolf Street blog. Not the car-crash kind — though that is a prevalent fear — but on the employment front.  “The magnitude of this problem is breathtaking,” he wrote. Citing government figures, he says that 4.1 million jobs (the stat of the day in our daily Need to Know before-the-bell column) are at risk, including chauffeurs and drivers of trucks, cabs and ride-share vehicles. Still others, like Lawrence Mishel, president of the Economic Policy Institute in Washington, D.C. agrees with Uber that automation tends to foster economic growth.  If Uber’s technology one day brings down the cost of providing a ride from $10 to $5, people will have $5 in their pocket they didn’t have before. That extra money will lead to an overall better working economy, he said. “The idea that automation is going to eliminate jobs in the economy overall is at best exaggerated and almost certainly is not true,” Mr. Mishel said. What about accidents?  Interestingly, a study recently published in the Journal of Science found that autonomous (AVs) should reduce traffic accidents, but noted that they will sometimes need to choose between running over a pedestrian to save its passenger or sacrificing its passenger to save the life of a pedestrian. While the study participants approved of utilitarian AVs, i.e. AVs that sacrifice their passengers for the greater good, the overwhelmingly preferred to ride in AVs that protect passengers at all costs.  The vast majority of study participants also disapproved of enforcing utilitarian regulations for AVs and would be less willing to buy such an AV. A representative from the U.S. Department of Transportation's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) said the administration plans to release updated guidelines on autonomous vehicles and automated safety technology this summer. In April 2016, NHTSA Administrator Mark Rosekind announced that the "NHTSA is developing operational guidance for the safe deployment of automated vehicles. This guidance will provide manufacturers and other stakeholders with guidelines for how NHTSA expects safe automated vehicles to behave in a variety of conditions.” When a driverless car gets in an accident, causes property damages or injuries, or breaks the law who's responsible? There are various candidates: -The manufacturer of the car; -The owner of the car, who decided to operate it in driverless mode and failed to take over in time; -The make of the software, sensors or other systems that went into the car; and/or, -Those responsible for training the owner of the driverless car. Like it or not, the future is here and being paved in Pittsburgh.

With all of the political rancor getting worse and worse, I desperately look for uplifting, feel-good headlines in my news feed. Today I actually saw one.  It seems that a perky, up-and-coming young star won this year’s America’s Got Talent.  You may be asking, so what?  Well, for one thing, this newfound talent is only 12 years old.  Even more amazing to me is the instrument that she plays--a ukulele.  Her name is Grace Vander Wall.  Get used to hearing it.  I have a hunch she’s going to be around for a long time. Some of you are probably fans of the show and have watched Grace from the beginning.  Unfortunately, I didn’t.  I saw a headline now and then, but I really didn’t follow the show or Grace’s story.  Now that she’s won, she’s getting a lot of attention in the press.  In fact, I typed “Grace” into my search engine and her name was the first thing to come up.  That’s pretty impressive for a middle schooler from Suffern, NY, a town with only 10,000 people.  (Note:  when I googled “Suffern,” Grace’s name also popped up.  Go figure!) I watched some videos of Grace singing and being interviewed.  I have to say I really love this girl’s innocence and authenticity.  There’s no fluff here.  No gimmicks.  Just a girl and her raw talent.  That’s refreshing!  Many of the songs she performed were old favorites, but some of them were originals that she actually wrote herself.  I was also impressed by Grace’s backstory.  After watching someone play the ukulele, she used her birthday money to go out and buy one and then taught herself to play it by watching YouTube videos.  Hmmm…  Resourceful, driven and willing to invest in her own self-improvement.  That’s a pretty impressive resume for a tweenager! Being the winner of America’s Got Talent comes with a whopping $1 million prize and a gig in Las Vegas.  My hope and prayer is that Grace stays grounded and true to who she is.  In that regard, I’m encouraged by an interview where she was asked what she was going to do with the prize money.  Some of it, she said, would be donated to charity--probably a musical charity.  And what else?  Oh, yeah, she wants to buy a tree house! Never change, Grace.  That’s the best advice I can give you.  You keep on writing, playing and singing, and we’ll keep on watching!

I can sympathize with anyone who just wants this election to be over. It feels like it has been going on all our lives, and there are still two months to go. But there is one thing I am excited about that hasn’t happened yet – maybe the only really fun we could possibly squeeze out of the rest of this 550-day slog to the 2016 election. That is the upcoming presidential debates – they will be like nothing we’ve ever seen before. Since Nixon-Kennedy in 1960, the debates have featured watershed moments in election after election. Who would look good, who would sound smarter, or cooler under fire? Who would be crushed with some one-liner, doomed to be a punchline for the rest of their lives? You find out at the debates. In fact, the debates have become so important, that they’ve been reduced to a science. Professional gurus prepare the candidates, leading politicians stand-in for opponents at marathon practice sessions. The headliners take days off to prepare, wading through reams of their adversary’s prior statements and speeches, memorizing their talking points and anticipating the moderator’s questions. The stakes are four years in the White House, a personal 747, and a nice title: “leader of the free world.” Four years ago, two of the most disciplined, intelligent, and professional debaters ever to contest the Presidency went at it. Mitt Romney and Barack Obama had many differences, but they were both the kind of man who does his homework and shows up ready to play. Each performed brilliantly in one of the first two debates – Romney dominating the opener, and Obama staging an Ali-like comeback in round two. Jamie Bordas and I covered them in painstaking detail on the Bordas & Bordas Legal Review. It may be many years before we see two debaters that prepared and that skilled again. It certainly will not be what we see this year. This year, we have a matchup unlike any other. Trump v. Clinton will be an unprecedented event, in which the prior rules do not apply, and where the lessons of debates past will be worthless. Make fun if you want, but I am going to tailgate for these debates. Some early thoughts on the matchup: Hillary Clinton should be one of the easiest debaters to prepare for in history. She has a record almost twenty-five years long in public life. Her positions on the issues are known quantities that anyone can learn. The questions she’s had difficulty answering can easily be gleaned from hundreds of hours of interviews on TV and even before Congress. She has many strengths that got her to this point, but simulating credibility in a tricky spot and being lightning-quick on her feet are not among them. For the professional preparers, she’s a dream opponent. Naturally then, Trump has decided not to prepare. Clinton is known for doing her homework, so she will be as ready as anyone, but she has her work cut out for her. Trump presents unique challenges never before seen in presidential politics. Most politicians hate to deviate from what they’ve said before, or to change their positions – that’s the dreaded “flip-flop.” That’s why it’s easier to prepare for them – you know what they’re going to say. Trump has shown no hesitation in changing his positions to suit the moment. He was going to deport eleven million illegal immigrants with a “deportation force,” then we were only going to deport those who committed violent crimes (the Obama policy), then next it was: “they all have to go, before they can come back.” That’s a preparation nightmare because there are arguments and criticisms that apply to all three positions, but you don’t know which one you’ll get, or if Trump will slip away like an agile boxer and say you are attacking a position he doesn’t really hold. But even more challenging are Trump’s rhetorical moves that he’s used throughout the campaign to throw off his Republican opponents and skilled journalists. He says something without really saying it with “many people are saying . . .” He gives an answer that has no content but he delivers it like it does, “the best people will come up with a great plan and people will be very happy with it. Believe me.” He takes people off-guard by doubling down on indefensible positions, like his praise of brutal dictator Vladimir Putin. Trump is a master of changing the subject, usually back to himself, when he wants to get on track. Even when contradicting himself, or known facts, he speaks with absolute certainty and rarely backs down – putting pressure on his competitors, or the moderators, to either call him a liar to his face, or accept his statements and move on. And he uses insults and humor throughout his performance which makes him enjoyable to watch even for people who would never vote for him – that’s the odd charisma that has made him a successful reality TV star. How does Clinton prepare for that? Let me think about it and get back to you.

September is Childhood Cancer Awareness Month. It breaks my heart that even one child has to suffer through cancer treatments. Families are literally torn apart when their little one is fighting to survive. Many times one parent travels with the child while the other parent is home with the other children holding down the fort until everyone is together again. Just the sad tales on Facebook of what these families go through is enough to make me cry. No one should have to set up Go Fund Me pages or hold benefits to get help paying for the expensive cancer treatments to save their child’s life, let alone have to have the additional worry of who is going to care for the family left behind while they are away taking care of their sick child. Over 250,000 children are diagnosed with cancer every year and sadly of those 250,000 diagnosed 91,250 will lose their life. Unfortunately, except for those over 65, the incidence of cancer among adolescents and young adults is increasing at a greater rate than any other age group. No ethnic group or socioeconomic class is spared. Despite these facts, childhood cancer research is terribly underfunded. To add insult to injury, two-thirds of the children that survive will have long-lasting chronic effects from the very treatments that killed the cancer they were stricken with. Even if one child dies, it is one too many. Join me in helping these children in any way you can. Give to the American Cancer Society, St. Jude’s Research Hospital, or a myriad of other organizations that specialize in childhood cancer research. Let’s give these children a fighting chance for survival. Let’s give them hope for a cure by giving today.

My kids will grow up and remember me yelling at the TV during the Army-Navy game. Lately, of course, none of that yelling has helped Army in the least, but at least I came by that type of conduct honestly. When I was a kid, I remember my dad yelling at the TV, too.  He’d only do it once a year and the target of his frustration, excitement, anger and joy was always the same:  The Pitt-Penn State game.  As a kid who grew up in Irwin, PA and went on to attend Pitt, my dad was a diehard Pitt football fan. Today, we are spoiled.  No matter where we live, virtually every game played by every team is available on one of the 500 TV channels or, at the very least, available to watch over the Internet.  Not back then. For work, my dad and mom eventually moved to Burlington, Vermont where I grew up.  There were not a lot of Pitt games on TV up there in the fall.  Undeterred, I remember my dad driving us 3 hours to Albany, New York because some Pitt game (Syracuse, I think) was on down there, but not at our house.  So we found a mall and sat in Sears for 4 hours watching the game. My grandparents still lived in Irwin, and I remember my dad sitting on the couch with the phone to his ear.  At the other end of the phone, my Grandpa Brown held the phone up to the radio so my dad could listen to the end of the games. Of course, for the Pitt-Penn State game, my dad didn’t have to go through all of that.  Pitt-Penn State was always on TV, even all the way up there in Vermont. It’s one of the tragedies of conference realignment that we lose so many of these annual rivalries.  Nonetheless, Pitt fans like my dad can put those frustrations away for this weekend.  Pitt-Penn State is back on.  The game is at noon at Heinz Field.  Although my dad can’t make it, I’m sure he’ll be home yelling at the TV.  Some things never change because some things shouldn’t change.

In July, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania in Donaldson v. Davidson Brothers v. LJF, Inc. issued a decision clarifying Pennsylvania’s Economic Loss Doctrine, the application of public policy considerations, and dismissing LJF’s Loss of Contract claim based upon Pennsylvania’s fact pleading rules. The case arises out of a tragic three-way motor vehicle accident on June 16, 2008 in Centre County, Penn., which resulted in a fatality. The Estate of Sarah Donaldson sued Davidson Brothers’ claiming that its west bound tractor-trailer rear-ended Ms. Donaldson’s vehicle, which thrust her car into opposing eastbound traffic causing a head-on collision with a tractor-trailer owned by LJF.  Davidson Brothers joined LJF into the litigation, but settled LJF’s property damage for $15,181.  LJF and Davidson entered into a settlement agreement resolving all claims, except any claims of loss of contract, which was preserved.  Later, LJF, in its Answer and Counterclaim to the joinder complaint, asserted liability claims against the Donaldson and Davidson including, inter alia, a claim for “loss of contract.”  Donaldson filed preliminary objections claiming that the Economic Loss Doctrine barred LJF’s counter claim; the trial court agreed and dismissed LJF’s counterclaim with prejudice.  Davidson later filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings on the same grounds, which the trial court granted, on July 24, 2015.  LJF appealed to the Superior Court arguing that Pennsylvania’s Economic Loss Doctrine did not bar recovery.  The Superior Court agreed with LJF, but nonetheless dismissed LJF’s counter claim for failing to plead the claim with legal sufficiency. The Economic Loss Doctrine provides that no cause of action exists for negligence that results solely in economic damages unaccompanied by physical injury or property damage.  In Margolis v. Jackson, the court denied recovery against third party negligent tortfeasor for loss of expected profits as indirect result of negligent incapacitation of claimants’ business partner.  In Aikens v. Balt. and Ohio R.R. Co., the court denied manufacturing plant employees claims for lost wages who did not suffer personal injury or property damage from train derailment, which damaged the plant.  In Robins Dry Dock & Repair Co. v. Flint, the United States Supreme Court decided that a charterer of a steamship could not recover damages for loss of use of the ship caused by the negligence of the company repairing the ship.  The US Supreme Court reasoned that claims for economic losses such as loss of contract, are not a foreseeable result of negligence. In this case, the trial court found that the allowance of damages to LJF for its loss of contract claims would be counter to public policy because claims for economic losses “such as loss of contract are not a foreseeable result of negligence.”  Further, the trial court determined that because LJF settled its property loss claim, the claim became “undeterminable,” and therefore did not exist.  Without a property damage claim, the trial court held that the Economic Loss Doctrine barred LJF’s claims for loss of contract. The Superior Court disagreed, stating that it was beyond serious dispute that “some” property damage occurred.  The court highlighted that there was no Pennsylvania case law that addressed or considered the effect of a release on the predicate condition of no claim for personal injury or physical damage.  Therefore, the Superior Court determined that the Economic Loss Doctrine did not bar LJF’s claim.  Furthermore, the Superior Court found the trial court’s reliance on the Aikens case to support its public policy analysis was misplaced.  In support of its holding, the Superior Court cited to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision in Mamlin v. Genoe., which provides, “It is only when a given policy is so obviously for or against the public health, safety, morals or welfare that there is a virtual unanimity of opinion in regard to it, that a court may constitute itself the voice of the community in so declaring .” While the Superior Court failed to find that the Economic Loss Doctrine and public policy considerations warranted dismissal of LJF’s loss of contract claim, it dismissed the claim under Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1019(a).  Pennsylvania is a fact-pleading state. As a minimum, a pleader must set forth concisely the facts upon which his cause of action is based. The complaint must not only apprise the defendant of the claim being asserted, but it must also summarize the essential facts to support the claim. Landau v. Western Pennsylvania National Bank. The purpose of Rule 1019 is to require the pleader to disclose the ‘material facts’ sufficient to enable the adverse party to prepare his case.  In this case, the Superior Court concluded that LJF failed to present a well pleaded allegation of loss of contract. “A generic, barebones claim of “loss of contract,” - never clarified or explained in eight years of legal dispute - is legally insufficient and would not warrant submission to a jury.”

This is a very touchy subject with a lot of people. It is difficult to understand why anyone would want to take his or her own life.  Some people feel it’s wrong, but until you have walked in someone else’s shoes and feel the pain, suffering and sometimes loneliness, you need to be more caring and compassionate. We are not here to judge one another, but to help lift each other up. Just because we don’t understand what a person is going through doesn’t mean we can’t try to help a person who is thinking about suicide or provide support to a family member of someone who has attempted suicide. Hopefully, most of us will never know the feelings of gloom and doom, but a person who has these feelings only lets you see what they want you to see. You may never know how they really feel about themselves, because some, if not all of these wonderful people will not let you in or tell you what their problems are. It could be drugs, alcohol, depression or a personal issue that they are going through like being bullied.  (More suicides happen over bullying than you will ever know.) They may seem ok on the outside, but inside they are crying all the time and they know how to put on a good act to cover up their sadness. Some people don’t know who they can trust or who they can turn to in their darkest hour. The sad part is that there are signs that we may not recognize.  A strange e-mail, phone call or a text. You may have talked to them a few minutes before they are planning to end it all, and just talking to you may have saved their life or it may have pointed them in the right direction on where they need to go to get help with these feelings they are having. Some of our young people feel if they let their family and friends down, they are worthless and people are better off without them.  This couldn’t be further from the truth. We all have demons that we fight, but just remember if you are feeling blue or feel like hurting yourself, please call someone.  A suicide prevention hot line is available 24-hours a day to help you.  You are not crazy and you are not alone. The phone number and web address of the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline in the United States are as follows: 1 (800) 273-8255 www.suicidepreventionlifeline.org Please know people care about you and love you for who you are, not for what you have done, and almost everything someone has done or said can be fixed in one way or another. Life is a wonderful gift and our lives wouldn’t be the same without the special people in it. As someone once told me, if it wasn’t for that one person saying hi or smiling at them that day they would have gone home and ended it all. So smile, speak or wave at people… you may be the one who saves a life. Tomorrow isn’t just another day. It’s a gift from God and he wants you to have many tomorrows. I understand. I’ve seen firsthand how suicide can change a family. Rock on, people. Rock on.