Legal Advice Blog: Legal Advice, Case Insights, & Local Law Information

What Parents Should Know About Daycare Liability in St. Clairsville Picking the right daycare facility to watch your children while you are working can be incredibly stressful. While most programs provide kids with numerous benefits, including the development of social skills and improved cognitive functioning, accidents do happen, even at top-rated preschools. If you are a parent with a child in daycare, you must understand the concept of daycare liability. The skilled attorneys at Bordas & Bordas Attorneys, PLLC could help you become familiar with what parents should know about daycare liability in St. Clairsville. Reach out to our firm today to get started. A Daycare’s Responsibility It is important for parents to understand that a daycare, as well as its individual employees, could be held liable for negligence if a child is injured under their care. A lack of supervision, failure to act on the child’s behalf, or not addressing the child’s medical needs are common examples of negligent actions that may lead to a personal injury claim. In Ohio, Type A (seven to 10 children) and B (up to six children) daycare homes are required by law to carry liability insurance that meets or exceeds the minimum of $100,000 per occurrence or $300,000 per aggregate, whether they are licensed by the state or not. The facility is also obligated to show you proof of this insurance when asked. What To Do When Your Child is Injured at Daycare It is a worrisome experience when you get a call from daycare stating that your child has been injured. First and foremost, take your child to the doctor, even if the daycare staff assures you they are fine. Next, request a copy of the incident report that caretakers are required to complete the same day as an accident. In addition to the report, speak with the director and insist on a detailed explanation of the incident. Next, schedule a free consultation with our office and bring the evidence you have collected for our review. Filing a Daycare Liability Claim If the daycare’s negligence led to your child’s injury, you may be entitled to file a claim with the facility’s insurance company. As a parent, it is important to champion your child’s rights to a safe environment and to seek compensation for damages, such as medical bills and your little one’s pain and suffering. Even if the state does not file criminal charges against the daycare or its staff, our attorneys could file a civil action on your family’s behalf. However, St. Clairsville parents must understand that Ohio has a two-year statute of limitations, so do not delay when filing a claim for daycare liability. Consult With a St. Clairsville Attorney That Could Help You Understand What Parents Should Know About Daycare Liability If your child was injured while attending a daycare program, you probably have a long list of questions. The compassionate personal injury attorneys at Bordas & Bordas Attorneys, PLLC have the answers you so desperately need. With decades of experience, we understand the sensitive nature of claims where a child is the victim of negligence. Reach out to our team to learn what parents should know about daycare liability in St. Clairsville. Let us review your case and explain your legal rights, so that you feel confident knowing what daycare liability means for your child.

Who’s Responsible for a Dog Bite on Public Property in Moundsville? Getting bitten by a dog can be a terrifying experience. We have all read the headlines about children and adults being attacked by the family dog, but what about when it happens on public property? Contact Bordas & Bordas Attorneys, PLLC to learn who’s responsible for a dog bite on public property in Moundsville. Our knowledgeable dog bite injury attorneys could help you navigate the legal process and pursue the compensation you deserve. Was the Dog “Running at Large?” If the dog that bit you or your loved one on public property in Moundsville was “running at large,” or not under the control of a handler, the state of West Virginia’s strict liability laws come into play. Under West Virginia Code §19-20-13, the dog’s owner is responsible for any injuries their pet inflicts upon another individual, even if they did not know their pet had dangerous tendencies. Furthermore, you do not have to prove that the owner acted negligently to successfully file a claim with their homeowner’s or renter’s insurance. What if the Dog Was Not Running at Large? If the owner or handler had control of the dog, typically with a leash, proving liability is a bit more complex. In such cases, the “one bite” rule may apply. This legal doctrine states that the owner could be held responsible if they were aware that the dog was aggressive and likely to cause someone harm. Our attorneys often prove this by showing the animal had a history of biting and that the owner was negligent in their control of their dog. Additional Factors to Consider When Determining Dog Bite Responsibility West Virginia’s legal system may also take other factors into account when determining who is liable for a Moundsville dog bite on public property. First, you must have been lawfully present on the property when the bite occurred and have not provoked the dog into attacking. The statute of limitations on dog bites is just two years, meaning any delay in filing your claim could result in a dismissal. Contact our Moundsville Lawyers to Learn More About Who is Liable for a Dog Bite on Public Property If you or a loved one were bitten by a dog on public property, you deserve justice. The compassionate personal injury attorneys at Bordas & Bordas Attorneys, PLLC could fight for your family’s rights to recover damages. Reach out to our experienced legal team to get your claim started and learn who’s responsible for a dog bite on public property in Moundsville. We offer free consultations to review the details of your case.

Slip and Fall Accidents in Pennsylvania: Understanding Premises Liability It could happen to anyone. Perhaps you were shopping in the freezer aisle of your local grocery store and slipped on a puddle of water, or maybe you tripped on an uneven walkway outside of a local boutique. No matter how it occurred, injuries from these types of accidents can be quite severe, ranging from broken bones to traumatic brain injuries. If you have been hurt in this way, you may be wondering who is responsible for your hospital bills and lost wages during your recovery. Keep reading to learn more about slip and fall accidents in Pennsylvania and gain a better understanding of premises liability. What Are the Main Factors of Premises Liability? Under Pennsylvania law, premises liability states that owners have a duty of care and must keep their property in reasonably safe condition to prevent slip and fall accidents. If a hazard cannot be fixed immediately, property owners must warn the public, typically with a sign, such as “wet floor” or “loose board.” Owners also have a responsibility to periodically inspect their property, identify potential risks, and take steps to fix them. How Our Skilled Attorneys Prove a Premises Liability Claim To hold a company or owner liable for a slip and fall in Pennsylvania, we must prove that your injuries were caused by a dangerous or unsafe condition on their property. It is also crucial to show that the at-fault party knew, or should have known, about the issue and failed to take timely action to remedy the hazard. Common Injuries Associated with Slip and Fall Accidents Slips and falls could result in several injuries, from bruises and strains to spinal cord damage. However, the most common injuries from these types of accidents include fractures, sprains, and head injuries. Whether you suffered a concussion or a dislocated shoulder, you could be facing years of painful rehabilitation and thousands in economic damages, including hospital bills, physical therapy, and loss of income. Non-economic losses are also common, such as pain and suffering, emotional distress, and loss of enjoyment of life. After suffering a painful and expensive injury in a slip and fall accident, it is essential to understand premises liability in Pennsylvania and how you could seek compensation. Get in Touch with a Pennsylvania Attorney Who Understands Premise Liability and Slip and Fall Accidents If you or your loved one was seriously injured in a slip and fall accident, reach out to the exceptional team of personal injury attorneys at Bordas & Bordas Attorneys, PLLC to get your claim started. We could review your case and explain your legal rights regarding slip and fall accidents in Pennsylvania, giving you a better understanding of premises liability.

The Pennsylvania Superior Court Analyzes the Federal Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act in Denying Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings In Boyle v. Meyer, 2025 PA Super 198 (September 9, 2025), the Pennsylvania Superior Court denied a physical therapy company’s motion for judgment on the pleadings based on the immunity provisions contained in the federal Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP Act). Background of the Case Plaintiff Boyle required physical therapy following open-heart surgery. To minimize the risk of contracting COVID-19, he arranged for OSPTA Home Care to provide in-home services. On November 8, 2020, physical therapist Meyer arrived without gloves, a face shield, or a proper mask — only wearing a thin, disposable surgical mask. Meyer also shook Boyle’s hand without gloves, did not wash her hands before treatment, and performed therapy as usual. Days later, OSPTA informed Boyle that Meyer had tested positive for COVID-19. Boyle soon developed symptoms, was hospitalized for ten days, and continued to suffer complications five months later. Boyle sued OSPTA and Meyer, alleging: Meyer was negligent in failing to wear proper personal protective equipment (PPE). Meyer exposed him to unreasonable risk and performed therapy despite known exposure. OSPTA failed to properly train and supervise Meyer and implement safeguards to prevent the virus’s spread. Defendants’ Motion and PREP Act Defense In response, Defendants admitted Meyer was not wearing gloves or a face shield but stated she wore a surgical mask and used hand sanitizer earlier in the day. They argued they were immune from liability under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 247d-6d, 247d-6e. Defendants asserted that they met all four requirements for immunity: Public health emergency – The COVID-19 pandemic triggered PREP Act protections. Covered persons – They qualified as both “program planners” and “qualified persons” under the Act. Covered countermeasure – Meyer’s “thin, disposable surgical mask” was a device authorized for emergency use by the FDA. Causal relationship – Meyer’s use of the mask had a causal connection to Boyle’s COVID-19 claim. The trial court denied their motion for judgment on the pleadings. Superior Court’s Analysis On appeal, the Superior Court found several factual disputes that prevented judgment for the Defendants. Specifically: It was unclear whether Meyer’s surgical mask qualified as a “covered countermeasure.” The pleadings did not conclusively establish that the Defendants were “covered persons.” Even if both were true, PREP Act immunity applies only to the use or administration of a covered countermeasure — not to its non-use. Citing Hampton v. California, 83 F.4th 754 (9th Cir. 2023), the Court noted that the PREP Act shields defendants from claims related to administering a covered measure, but not from claims alleging failure to administer one. Because Boyle’s complaint focused on the failure to use proper PPE, inadequate screening, and lack of training, his claims fell outside the scope of federal immunity. Conclusion The Superior Court concluded that the PREP Act did not preempt Boyle’s state-law negligence claims, affirming the trial court’s denial of the motion for judgment on the pleadings. The full opinion in Boyle v. Meyer, 2025 PA Super 198 (September 9, 2025), is available on the Pennsylvania Judiciary website. To learn more about legal issues surrounding immunity and negligence in Pennsylvania courts, visit our post on how the PA Superior Court reviews evidentiary challenges in medical cases.

Lead Risk Prompts Nationwide Recall of Ground Cinnamon The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued a nationwide recall of 12 ground cinnamon brands after testing revealed elevated levels of lead. Roughly 21,690 units were sold through retailers like Dollar Tree and Save-A-Lot before being pulled from shelves. Consumers are urged to immediately throw away any affected products and avoid purchasing them until further notice. See the official FDA recall notice. Why This Recall Matters Although no injuries have been reported yet, the FDA warns that prolonged consumption of contaminated cinnamon can cause lead accumulation in the body. Children are especially at risk, since lead exposure can impact neurological development. Cinnamon is often used in foods like cereals, baked goods, and snack mixes — staples in many households with kids. This makes the recall a major public health concern for families nationwide, including those in West Virginia, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. FDA’s Broader Effort This recall is part of a larger FDA initiative to monitor imported spices more closely. Several cinnamon brands have been flagged in prior alerts, and surveillance is ongoing. For example: The FDA recently added Asli brand ground cinnamon to the list of affected products after new testing revealed unsafe lead levels. Additional products may be named as investigations continue. See the expanded FDA alert. What You Should Do If you purchased ground cinnamon recently: Check your spice cabinet against the recall list. Dispose of any recalled products immediately. Do not repurchase affected brands until the FDA clears them. If you suspect your child or another family member has been exposed, consult a healthcare provider for guidance. For ongoing updates, visit the FDA’s cinnamon recall page. Protecting Consumers This recall is a reminder that product safety issues extend beyond toys, appliances, and vehicles — even everyday food staples can carry risks. Families in WV, OH, and PA should stay informed about recalls and understand their rights if a defective or dangerous product causes harm. At Bordas & Bordas, our attorneys help consumers hold corporations accountable when safety takes a backseat to profit.

How Motorcycle Accidents Differ Legally From Car Accidents Riding a motorbike comes with a greater risk of personal injury than driving a car, and the laws regarding accidents involving these vehicles differ. Keep reading to learn more about how motorcycle accidents differ legally from car accidents and how a personal injury attorney could help you. Choice No-Fault System Pennsylvania adopted a choice no-fault insurance system in 1990 to reduce litigation and accelerate claims processing. This law means that you get to choose between limited or full tort auto insurance. The law also has different implications for car and motorcycle accidents. If you get into a car accident, your insurance company will pay for your damages under the Personal Injury Protection section of your policy. However, if you get into an accident on your bike, you may not be restricted to filing a claim with your provider for your injuries and property damages. You may be able to sue the at-fault party’s insurance company for compensation. Motorcyclists Are Exempt From the No-Fault System Our state’s no-fault law does not apply to motorcyclists but does apply to car drivers. Whenever you are riding a motorbike, you are protected by your full tort insurance, as long as you pay the premiums. That policy gives you the right to sue for your medical bills, rehabilitation and therapy, lost wages, and the costs to get your bike back on the road. As a motorcyclist, you are also exempt from the limited tort’s strict injury threshold for pain and suffering. Our state’s lawmakers understand that you are more vulnerable to injury in an accident than car drivers due to a motorcycle’s lack of safety features, such as seatbelts and airbags. What Is the Modified Comparative Negligence Rule? Another statewide policy that differs in relation to car and motorbike accidents is the modified comparative negligence rule. This law states that, as a motorbike rider, you are still able to collect damages if you were partially at fault for the collision. However, there is a limit. If the state determines that you were 51 percent or more at-fault, it would likely dismiss your lawsuit. Contact a Knowledgeable Attorney Today for Advice on the Different Legal Implications of Motorbike and Car Accidents Now that you understand more about how motorcycle accidents differ legally from car accidents, contact us at Bordas & Bordas if you have been involved in a motorcycle accident. Let us review your case and provide you with the sound advice you need at a time like this. There is a lot at stake after a motorcycle accident, and we are here to ensure you get the fair compensation you need to cover your damages. We have a long history of winning big for our injured clients, so start the process now with a free consultation.

How to Document Evidence After a Fall at a Local Business Every business open to the public in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, has a duty to protect its customers from hazards that could cause a fall. Whether you encountered a broken staircase, a snowy sidewalk, or a spill, the property owner failed to maintain a safe environment that led to your injury. While you are likely entitled to compensation under the state’s premise liability laws, gathering the right evidence could strengthen your claim dramatically. Learn how to document evidence after a fall at a local business with this guide from the winning personal injury attorneys at Bordas & Bordas. Act Quickly at the Scene of the Fall After a fall at a local business, you want to act quickly to document what caused you to slip in the first place. If you are physically able, use your phone to take videos and/or pictures of the hazard that caused you to fall. Whether it was a wet floor or a cracked sidewalk, capture a wide shot of the area in general, as well as a close-up of the issue. You would also want to take photos of your injuries, like cuts, scrapes, or bruises. Then, ask for the names and phone numbers of anyone who witnessed your fall. Request to speak with the business’s owner or manager and insist on completing an incident report on scene. This is also a good time to request a copy of the company’s surveillance video that may show you falling. Make sure to get a copy for your records and never admit it was your fault. Even saying “I am sorry” to staff could be construed as admitting you were to blame. What To Do After Leaving the Business Once you have gathered as much evidence as you can at the scene, seek immediate medical attention. Unless you were taken to the hospital by ambulance, that is, and that is okay too. While you are waiting in the emergency room, take some time to document everything you remember about the incident while it is still fresh in your mind. This is an easy thing to do in the Notes app on your phone. Once you get home, resist the urge to wash your clothes. They could be a crucial piece of evidence, especially if they were torn or had blood stains on the knees, for example. Gather your medical bills and keep track of your lost wages and any other directly related expenses you incur while you recover. We also recommend that you refrain from posting about the incident on your social media platforms, as insurance adjusters do monitor these sites. Let a Highly Experienced Personal Injury Attorney Review Your Fall Case Now that you have a basic understanding of how to document evidence after a fall at a local business, reach out to our personal injury firm with your questions. Now, it is time to schedule your free consultation with a member of our Bordas & Bordas legal team. Let us review the evidence of your fall, so our attorneys can guide you to a settlement that covers all your damages. One of our previous premises liability cases resulted in an award of nearly $17 million. However, we must have documented evidence to demonstrate that the business was negligent in order to win your case.

Pedestrian Rights After Being Hit in a Crosswalk in Wheeling We are sure you have heard that pedestrians always have the right of way when traversing the road. But you may not understand your rights as a pedestrian after being hit in a crosswalk. Unfortunately, Wheeling is well known across news outlets for having a high number of pedestrian safety issues, and when a walker meets a vehicle, these types of accidents tend to result in significant injuries. Learn more about your rights after being hit in a crosswalk in this bustling West Virginia city now. Do Walkers Always Have the Right of Way in a Marked Crossing? If you were struck by a vehicle while using a designated crosswalk, you are presumed to have the right of way, and the driver would likely be considered at fault. That does not mean that you do not have certain responsibilities. It is up to you to exercise caution and remain alert whenever you are walking near traffic. However, if a motorist does fail to yield, you may be entitled to compensation for your losses, such as medical bills and lost wages, as well as pain and suffering. Does Wheeling’s Comparative Negligence Rule Apply to Pedestrians? Even if you crossed the street against a red light in Wheeling, you may still have a claim under West Virginia’s comparative negligence rule. This system also allows people like you who were injured by a potentially inattentive driver to collect a portion of their damages based on your percentage of fault. For example, if you were found to be 35 percent at fault, you would forfeit 35 percent of your settlement. This rule only applies if you are less than 50 percent liable for the collision. As a pedestrian, if you are the primary cause of the accident (i.e., 51 percent or more at fault), you would not be able to recover any damages at all. What Should You Do If You Were Hit in a Crosswalk in Wheeling? As soon as you are physically able, get out of the road and call 911 for help and seek immediate medical attention. Do not admit fault to any party, even if you believe you may have contributed to the collision. It is always best to speak with your Bordas & Bordas attorney before talking with an insurance adjuster. Your best interests are not on their mind. Protecting the company’s bottom line is its primary focus. Learn More About Your Pedestrian Rights and Set Your Case in Motion Now While these basic pedestrian rights apply to everyone in Wheeling, your case is unique and should be treated that way. The knowledgeable attorneys at Bordas & Bordas would advocate for you after being hit in a crosswalk, and in court if necessary. Give the legal team at our Wheeling office the chance to review your claim. We have won numerous cases that have resulted in millions in compensation for other injured clients, and we could do the same for you. Start the process by reaching out to Bordas & Bordas today and schedule your free initial consultation.

Recent Drug Recalls and What They Mean for You It seems like you hear about recalls in the news all the time. From defective products to contaminated foods, there are no shortages of these frightening consumer safety alerts. But when the FDA issues a warning about a withdrawn medication, patients like you should take notice. Learn more about the recent drug recalls and what they mean for you with this guide from the knowledgeable dangerous drug attorneys at Bordas & Bordas. Which Drugs Were Recently Recalled? Pharmaceutical companies have a legal responsibility to keep their patients safe from potentially dangerous or defective drugs. The FDA has announced the withdrawal of numerous medications in 2025 that could be harmful to your health. This long list of affected drugs includes common products like Cefazolin, DermaKleen, Zicam, Octagam, and Rizatriptan. Whether the issue was due to the presence of allergens and impurities, mislabeling and mispackaging, or microbial contamination, taking these affected drugs could pose a hazard to your and your family’s health. What Does a Drug Recall Mean for You? Sometimes drug manufacturers make mistakes. But whether these errors are minor, cause severe health issues, or even wrongful death, you have a right to compensation if you or a loved one has been injured by a recalled drug. A drug recall is a measure to protect public health by removing potentially harmful substances from the market. The first step is to learn more about the affected medication and determine whether you should discontinue use and return it to the store or pharmacy. The FDA’s website is a good resource. However, if you become ill, you must seek immediate medical attention, as the recalled drug could be life-threatening. What To Do if Your Prescription Drug Has Been Recalled Taking an over-the-counter medication or one prescribed by your doctor is supposed to make you feel better, not endanger your health. If you recently discovered that a drug you have in your home has been recalled, contact your doctor for advice. You may have to stop taking it immediately and start on an alternative medication. Now, reach out to the law offices of Bordas & Bordas if you live within our multi-state service area. We could help you report any adverse reactions to the FDA’s MedWatch program and get the medical care you need to recover. We hope that you were not seriously injured by the recalled defective drug. But if you were, our team of experienced attorneys could file a product liability lawsuit against the manufacturer on your behalf. Start the Process With Our Experienced Personal Injury Attorneys Now that you have a basic understanding of recent drug recalls and their implications for you, please let us know if you have any questions. We would be happy to review your case with our free, no-obligation initial consultation. Get in touch with a member of our legal team at Bordas & Bordas now. We have won millions in compensation for plaintiffs like you. Let us help you hold the drug manufacturer or their insurance company financially liable for your damages, because we understand how drug recalls could negatively impact your quality of life.

Truck Accidents: When Is the Company At Fault Instead of the Driver? Trucking accidents are some of the most devastating collisions on our roadways. The sheer weight and force of these moving behemoths could lead to severe or even fatal injuries for those of us riding in smaller vehicles. Whether it was an 18-wheeler, dump truck, or tanker, if you were involved in an accident with a commercial truck, you likely have a long list of expensive damages, including hospital bills, lost wages, and auto body repairs. But who do you blame in Pennsylvania, the carrier or the driver? Keep reading to learn when the company is at fault and not the driver. Was the Trucking Company Directly Negligent? In Pennsylvania, a trucking company could be held directly liable for an accident in several scenarios. If the carrier follows poor hiring practices, such as employing unqualified or inexperienced drivers, it may be found liable. The company must also provide adequate training to its operators to ensure they understand safe driving techniques while complying with stringent state regulations, including proper commercial licensing, size and weight regulations, and hours-of-service requirements, among others. Another way your truck accident attorney could legally pursue the company instead of the driver is if the carrier failed to properly maintain the trucks in its fleet. Maintaining safety standards is crucial, and the failure of critical components, such as brakes, tires, and lights, poses a serious risk to other drivers. When Is a Trucking Company Vicariously Negligent? Vicarious liability is a legal principle that your lawyer could also use to hold a trucking company at fault for your collision. Instead of filing a claim against the driver, in this case, we would hold their employer responsible for your damages. When an operator is acting within the scope of their job and an accident occurs, we must prove that they committed a wrongful, or “tortious act” in legal terms, to win your claim. This scenario only applies to drivers with an employee-employer relationship and does not apply to those who are contracted or freelance drivers. Could There Be Other Liable Parties? Yes, there could be other parties your personal injury lawyer could sue on your behalf, beyond the trucking company. If the carrier uses a separate vehicle maintenance company, and the repair shop’s negligence led to mechanical failures or faulty brakes, for example, it could be named in your lawsuit. Parts’ manufacturers could also be held liable when a defective design or manufacturing process was determined to be the cause of your trucking accident. Schedule a Free Consultation To Learn When the Trucking Company Is at Fault for a Collision If you were lucky enough to walk away from the wreckage after a trucking accident, you probably have questions. The experienced 18-wheeler accident attorneys at Bordas & Bordas have the answers you are looking for. We are well-versed in Pennsylvania’s negligence laws and know when the company is at fault rather than the driver. We have a long list of satisfied clients who have won millions in compensation for their damages. Let us add your name to this list of wins. Take advantage of our free initial consultation so we can review your case and explain your rights.

Who’s Liable in a Multi-Car Pileup on I-70? No one wants to get in an accident on I-70, but the dangers of a multi-car pileup go beyond whiplash and a late arrival at work. There is a real chance of sustaining a serious injury and thousands of dollars in property damage. But who will foot the bill for your emergency room visit, physical therapy, body shop repairs, and other costly damages? Keep reading to learn more about who our personal injury law firm could hold liable in a multi-car pileup on I-70. Why is Determining Liability in a Multi-Car Pileup So Complex? Liability in a multi-car pileup on I-70 is not always clear-cut. It is a complex situation involving more than two drivers (and their respective insurance companies) in the collision. Beyond deciding who the hit-ers and the hit-ees were among the number of motorists involved, Pennsylvania’s modified comparative fault law also comes into play. What Is the Process of Establishing Liability in Pennsylvania? The process of determining who could be held liable for a multi-car pileup on I-70 starts with gathering evidence. Police officers and insurance adjusters would collect witness statements, examine physical evidence such as skid marks, and obtain weather reports in cases where conditions were a factor. Were the drivers acting reasonably and following traffic laws or did they breach their duty of care, is another investigative question officials must answer. What Is the State’s Modified Comparative Fault Law? Pennsylvania’s modified comparative fault law specifies that if you are 50 percent or more at fault for the accident, you cannot sue for damages. On the other hand, if you are less than 50 percent responsible for the accident, you may be entitled to a settlement. However, that amount would be directly related to your percentage of liability. For example, you were found to be 40 percent at fault for the collision, and your total losses amounted to $10,000. You may be able to recover $6,000 while forfeiting your 40 percent fault (or $4,000) from a potential settlement. Would My PIP Cover My Injuries? In addition to modified comparative fault laws, Pennsylvania also operates on a no-fault insurance system. Under this statute, the personal injury protection (PIP) component of your auto insurance coverage would typically pay for your medical bills, regardless of who caused the multi-car pileup on I-70. But do not be discouraged. If you sustained serious injuries or other damages that exceed your policy limits, we could file a claim on your behalf. Learn More About Who Is Liable After A Multi-Car Pileup on I-70 Let the knowledgeable auto accident attorneys at Bordas & Bordas help untangle the web of confusion surrounding this topic. Our lawyers could review your case to see if you are eligible for a settlement through Pennsylvania’s modified comparative fault laws that goes beyond your policy’s PIP coverages. Our legal team at Bordas & Bordas has won millions for our other clients, and we are standing by to speak with you about who is liable in a multi-car pileup on I-70.

PA Superior Court Vacates Verdict Over Improper Remarks and Jury Instructions Background of the Case In Lewis v. Reading Hospital, 2025 PA Super 191 (September 2, 2025), the Pennsylvania Superior Court vacated a $869,000 judgement because counsel told the jury that the defense was unable to retain causation expert, and because the trial court gave an instruction and verdict form to the jury that equated the negligence element of factual cause with an “increased risk of harm.” Lewis underwent vascular surgery by Dr. Luo to repair abdominal aortic aneurysms at Reading Hospital.  Following surgery, Lewis complained of severe pain, swelling, and discoloration in his left foot. Dr. Luo determined that Lewis suffered from ischemia but did not think there was a viable surgical or medicinal means of correcting the problem; therefore, he elected to monitor Lewis. Three weeks later, Lewis developed gangrene of his left foot, which had to be amputated. During litigation, Lewis’ expert, Dr. Wu opined that Dr. Luo was negligent for not administering anticoagulant medications, and that such negligence increased the risk of harm, and played a role in causing the need for amputation. The Defendants’ vascular expert, Dr. Wun opined that the use of blood-thinning medications would not have prevented the need to amputate Lewis’ foot and could have worsened Lewis’ outcome. The Court ordered Dr. Wun to identify the medical literature to support his opinion, but Dr. Wun failed to do so. Ultimately, the trial court precluded Dr. Wun from offering any expert opinions. Improper Opening Statement In his opening statement, Lewis’ counsel told the jury that despite more than 3,000 vascular surgeons in the United States, the defense was not going to produce the testimony of a vascular surgery expert at trial. The trial court declined the Defendants’ motion for a mistrial but gave the jury several curative instructions that counsel’s statements were not evidence. Citing Siegal v. Stefanyszyn, 718 A.2d 1274 (Pa. Super. 1998), the Defendants argued that a cautionary instruction was insufficient to cure the prejudice of an improper remark about the lack of an expert opinion witness.  However, the trial court felt that the present case was distinguishable from Siegal. During the court’s conference regarding jury instructions and jury verdict form, the trial court’s charge repeatedly instructed that Defendants were liable if the jury found that their negligent conduct resulted in actual harm to Lewis or an increased risk of harm.  The Defendants objected to the “addition of increased risk to the factual cause discussions” on the record after the charge conference, and the objection was overruled. The jury verdict form asked: Was the negligence of those Defendants you have found to be negligent, a cause of harm or an increased risk of harm to the Plaintiff? Ultimately, the jury issued a verdict in Lewis’ favor in the amount of $869,000. On appeal, the Superior Court held that no instruction could undo the prejudice caused by misleading the jury about the absence of expert testimony, especially when that absence was due to the court’s own preclusion ruling. Faulty Jury Instructions on Causation A party who succeeds in excluding evidence on legal grounds may not mislead the jury by telling it that such evidence never existed in the first place. See e.g., Siegal, 718 A.2d at 1277.  But, where the absence of evidence does not result from a court ruling, a party has more leeway to emphasize that fact to the jury as being indicative of a weakness in an opponent’s position. See e.g., Steltz v. Meyers, 265 A.3d 335, 348 (Pa. 2021). “There are certain instances where the comments of counsel are so offensive or egregious that no curative instruction can adequately obliterate the taint.” Siegal, 718 A.2d at 1277. Here, the Superior Court concluded that there were no curative instructions that could have adequately cured the prejudice of counsel’s improper remarks. The Superior Court also determined that an “increased risk of harm” should not be equated with factual (proximate) cause.  A finding of increased risk of harm instead functions as a means of allowing the fact-finder to link the defendant’s conduct to the plaintiff’s harm, where it might be impossible to establish that an act or omission by a physician directly caused, or was a “but-for” cause of a patient’s harm: uch evidence furnishes the basis for the fact-finder to go further and find that such increased risk was in turn a substantial factor in bringing about the resultant harm; the necessary proximate cause will have been made out if the jury sees fit to find cause in fact. Sutherland v. Monongahela Valley Hosp., 856 A.2d 55, 60 (Pa. Super. 2004) (quoting Hamil v. Bashline, 392 A.2d 1280, 1288 (Pa. 1978)). Ultimately, the Superior Court concluded that by repeatedly equating an increased risk of harm with factual cause in both the jury charges and the verdict form, the trial court’s instructions were erroneous and improperly eased Plaintiff’s burden of proving Defendants’ liability, depriving them of a fair trial. The Superior Court’s opinion in Lewis v. Reading Hospital, 2025 PA Super 191 (September 2, 2025) can be accessed here. Understanding the appeals process in Pennsylvania is key to protecting your legal rights after a trial. Our team at Bordas & Bordas explains how appeals work and what steps may be available if you’re unhappy with a verdict.