Minimizing exposure to your business in pre-litigation begins with:
- conducting thorough inspections to identify and reduce hazards
- implementing and enforcing clear, effective, and reasonable policies and procedures on safety
- hiring and training qualified staff to follow safety protocols, handle incidents professionally, and serve as effective witnesses
- contemporaneously and accurately investigating and documenting conditions and events as they occur
- preserving evidence such as contact information for all fact witnesses, as well as any video footage and photographs
- having counsel of your own choosing conduct witness interviews, take witness statements, and provide advice and guidance to avoid litigation
Early intervention by counsel in pre-litigation can help you avoid costly litigation and influence case outcomes should the need for litigation arise. Post-litigation, the need for immediate intervention by counsel becomes even more essential.
Upon litigation being filed, experienced counsel will take a deeper look at how to best defend your case and create a winning legal strategy for you. Quite often, the best defense in your case is one that is not so obvious but mired in the details – i.e. technical legal procedure. Having highly experienced and detail-oriented legal counsel, who are well-versed in the rules of civil procedure, in your corner can bring high-stakes litigation to an immediate and successful conclusion.
For example, our office recently handled a matter where a patron tripped and fell due to an alleged “dangerous condition” in a Philadelphia business. Plaintiff filed the action on the eve of the statute of limitations. While the action was initially timely filed, it was noted by our firm that Plaintiff then neglected to timely reinstate the Complaint and properly effectuate formal service. Our office filed Preliminary Objections, arguing that Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the technical requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure warranted that the case be dismissed.
The Court agreed and the action was dismissed with prejudice. Subsequent appeals to the Pennsylvania Superior Court and Supreme Court also resulted in Orders in favor of our client.
By technically failing to properly reinstate the Complaint in 30-day increments and make timely service efforts, it was held the statute of limitations was not tolled under the seminal case of Lamp v. Heyman, 366 A.2d 882 (Pa. 1976). As noted by the Courts, “the rules concerning service of process must be strictly followed.” Id.
Cases like this one illustrate the need for engaging effective legal counsel as soon as possible, at both the pre- and post-litigation stage. Otherwise, winning strategies and technical defenses that may be available to you could go unrecognized.
[View source.]
