Carol is a member of the Appellate Advocacy and Post-Trial Practice Group in the Professional Liability Department. She focuses her practice on drafting concise, forceful briefs and delivering persuasive oral arguments in state and federal trial and appellate courts. Carol handles appeals across a wide range of subject areas which include, among others, products liability, toxic torts, medical malpractice, insurance coverage, civil rights, professional liability and premises liability. As part of her practice, Carol regularly handles emergency matters which arise throughout the course of litigation and assists trial counsel with development of legal strategies, preparation of pre-trial motions, trial briefs, and post-trial motions. She also performs appellate monitoring of high-exposure trials to assist trial counsel in preserving issues for appeal. This assistance includes handling and arguing legal issues before the trial court so trial counsel can focus on witnesses and the presentation of evidence.
In addition to her practice, Carol is actively involved in Pennsylvania defense organizations and informing members of the defense bar about notable legal developments. Currently, Carol serves as co-editor of Counterpoint, the well-regarded magazine of the Pennsylvania Defense Institute. She has also hosted statewide teleconferences of defense counsel regarding new legal developments.
Prior to joining Marshall Dennehey in 2005, Carol worked for five years as a staff attorney for the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit where she drafted memoranda of law and opinions on a variety of subjects including civil rights, employment, bankruptcy, immigration, securities and tax law.
Carol graduated from California State University, San Marcos, magna cum laude, with a Bachelor of Arts in political science. She subsequently attended American University, Washington College of Law, where she obtained her juris doctor, cum laude, in 2001. While attending law school, Carol taught legal research and writing and served as a member of the American University Law Review.
Results
Superior Court Reverses Trial Court Venue Objections
Carol VanderWoude (Philadelphia) obtained reversal of a trial court’s order overruling preliminary objections as to venue. The plaintiff filed suit in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas alleging negligence for injuries sustained in a car accident. The accident occurred in Lebanon County between the plaintiff’s vehicle and a school bus driven by an employee of defendant transportation company. The corporate defendant provided transportation services to school districts in Lebanon and Lancaster Counties, and had no clients in Philadelphia County. The trial court overruled the preliminary objections to venue, reasoning the act of transporting students into Philadelphia for approximately two-dozen field trips during the pertinent school year satisfied the quality-quantity venue analysis. The Superior Court disagreed. It was persuaded by the arguments raised on appeal and reversed. The court held that the field trips simply aided in the corporate defendant’s main purpose of providing transportation services as directed by its clients located outside Philadelphia County, and that those field trips were not conducted regularly enough to satisfy the quantity portion of the venue analysis. The venue ruling was interlocutory and not appealable, but the Superior Court granted permission to immediately appeal the ruling so the venue issue could be resolved at the outset of the case.
Summary Judgment Secured in a Case Involving a Trampoline Park Injury
We obtained summary judgment in a lawsuit arising from an injury suffered at an indoor trampoline park. During the deposition, the plaintiff admitted that there are inherent risks of engaging in trampoline activities, including the risk of being injured. Under the no-duty rule, a defendant owes no duty of care to warn, protect, or insure against risks which are common, frequent, expected and inherent in an activity. In the motion for summary judgment, it was argued that a trampoline park has no duty to protect patrons from the inherent risks of injury when jumping from a trampoline. The court opined that the no-duty rule was implicated and granted summary judgment in favor of all defendants.
