Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.

Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw

Dana Ganard v. Doordash, Inc., et al.

Date: 12-15-2023

Case Number: 2:23-cv-04215

Judge: Mia Roberts Perez

Court: United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia County)

Plaintiff's Attorney:





Click Here For The Best Philadelphia Personal Injury Lawyer Directory







Defendant's Attorney: John Grant Stringham and Christopher J. Sulock

Description:
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania personal injury car wreck lawyer represented the Plaintiff who sued the Defendants on auto negligence theories claiming to have suffered less than $75,000 in damages and/or injuries as a direct result on the negligence operation of a motor vehicle.



Plaintiff sought remand to the Court of Common Pleas, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania.



"Pennsylvania auto negligence law operates under a modified comparative negligence system, which means that both parties involved in an accident can be partially responsible for the damages. Here are some key points to understand:



Duty of Care:



Every driver has a legal duty to act with reasonable care towards other drivers, passengers, and pedestrians. This includes obeying traffic laws, maintaining a safe speed, and being alert and avoiding distractions.



Breach of Duty:



A driver breaches their duty of care when they behave in a negligent manner, such as:

Speeding

Distracted driving

Driving under the influence

Ignoring traffic signals or signs

Following too closely

Reckless driving



Causation:



The driver's breach of duty must have directly caused the accident and resulting injuries. There must be a clear link between the negligence and the harm suffered.



Damages:



If negligence and causation are proven, the injured party can recover damages for:

Medical expenses

Lost wages or income

Pain and suffering

Emotional distress

Property damage



Modified Comparative Negligence:



Unlike a pure comparative negligence system, Pennsylvania allows the injured party to recover damages even if they contributed to the accident, as long as their negligence is less than 51%. This means that if you are found to be 40% at fault for the accident, you can still recover 60% of your damages from the other driver.

However, if your negligence exceeds 51%, you are barred from recovering any damages from the other driver.



Other Important Points:



Pennsylvania also has a limited tort option that allows drivers to choose lower insurance premiums in exchange for limiting their ability to recover non-economic damages like pain and suffering.

There are specific laws governing accidents involving motorcycles, bicycles, and pedestrians.

It's always advisable to consult with a qualified legal professional if you have been involved in a car accident, even if the injuries seem minor. They can help you navigate the legal process and fight for the compensation you deserve.



Additional Resources:



Pennsylvania Department of Transportation: https://www.penndot.gov/: https://www.penndot.gov/

Pennsylvania Bar Association: https://www.pabar.org/: https://www.pabar.org/

FindLaw - Pennsylvania Auto Negligence Laws: https://www.findlaw.com/state/pennsylvania-law/pennsylvania-negligence-laws.html: https://www.findlaw.com/state/pennsylvania-law/pennsylvania-negligence-laws.html"



Google Bard



Outcome:
12/15/2023 16 Minute Entry for proceedings held before HONORABLE MIA ROBERTS PEREZ Status Conference held on 12/15/23. (rf, ) (Entered: 12/15/2023)

12/15/2023 17 ORDER THAT CASE BE REMANDED TO MONTGOMERY COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS. SIGNED BY HONORABLE MIA ROBERTS PEREZ ON 12/15/23. 12/15/23 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED. *EMAILED TO MONTGOMERY COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS*(rf, ) (Entered: 12/15/2023)
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments:

About This Case

What was the outcome of Dana Ganard v. Doordash, Inc., et al.?

The outcome was: 12/15/2023 16 Minute Entry for proceedings held before HONORABLE MIA ROBERTS PEREZ Status Conference held on 12/15/23. (rf, ) (Entered: 12/15/2023) 12/15/2023 17 ORDER THAT CASE BE REMANDED TO MONTGOMERY COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS. SIGNED BY HONORABLE MIA ROBERTS PEREZ ON 12/15/23. 12/15/23 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED. *EMAILED TO MONTGOMERY COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS*(rf, ) (Entered: 12/15/2023)

Which court heard Dana Ganard v. Doordash, Inc., et al.?

This case was heard in United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia County), PA. The presiding judge was Mia Roberts Perez.

Who were the attorneys in Dana Ganard v. Doordash, Inc., et al.?

Plaintiff's attorney: Click Here For The Best Philadelphia Personal Injury Lawyer Directory. Defendant's attorney: John Grant Stringham and Christopher J. Sulock.

When was Dana Ganard v. Doordash, Inc., et al. decided?

This case was decided on December 15, 2023.