Advertising Disclosure Email Disclosure
PDF version

Laurianne Falcone

2000 Market Street, Suite 2300
Philadelphia, PA 19103
(215) 575-2715
(215) 575-0856 - Fax

Laurie handles premises liability matters for retail facilities, daycare centers, amusement parks, homeowners and businesses involving personal injury matters and governmental entities. She handles trucking and transportation as well as automobile liability litigation. Laurie is also a certified arbitrator in Philadelphia.

Prior to joining Marshall Dennehey, Laurie served as a law clerk to the Honorable Gene D. Cohen in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County where she wrote judicial opinions, observed trials, and prepared lecture materials for the National Judicial College. 

Laurie is a graduate of Temple University School of Law and Ursinus College. 

Significant Representative Matters

  • Obtained a defense verdict in a lawsuit alleging that the defendant set off a firework that struck an 11-year-old girl, resulting in second degree burns and permanent scarring on her back. Plaintiffs alleged through two independent eyewitnesses that the defendant was the perpetrator, although the defendant was acquitted in his criminal trial.  The jury was not permitted to hear any evidence regarding the criminal trial or to know that the defendant was acquitted. The jury found that the defendant was not negligent.

  • Defense verdict in lawsuit alleging negligent supervision by daycare facility of five-year-old child who sustained a severe fracture to his arm. Plaintiffs alleged that daycare employee was not properly "spotting" the child while he swung on the monkey bars at a local playground. Jury found defendant was not negligent because child had swung on monkey bars before without "spotting" and employee was standing just several feet away. Plaintiffs were awarded $40,000 at initial arbitration.

  • Defense verdict in lawsuit alleging negligence by amusement park for failing to provide a safe egress for adult on a water slide. Plaintiffs alleged that amusement park did not provide adequate assistance to adult patron who was unable to exit an inner tube and who hit her head on the bottom of the pool. Jury found defendant was not negligent because of videotape showing many patrons using the same attraction without incident and plaintiff was responsible for her own incident. Plaintiffs were awarded $15,000 at initial arbitration.

  • Defense verdict in lawsuit alleging negligence by amusement park for failing to provide a safe environment for five-year-­old child on an "attractive nuisance" staircase. Plaintiffs alleged that amusement park did not provide sufficient padding in and around a staircase featuring a prominent television character. Jury found defendant was not negligent because defendant is not required to protect its patrons from mere accidents. Plaintiffs were awarded $8,500 at initial arbitration.

  • Defense verdict in lawsuit alleging assault and battery by employees of retail facility during shoplifting incident. Plaintiff alleged that retail facility was negligent for allowing two of its employees to physically assault suspected shoplifters while questioning them. Jury found defendant was not negligent because plaintiff's evidence was not credible to support that such an assault even occurred, even though plaintiff sustained an orbital fracture.

  • Defense verdict in a slip and fall matter.  Plaintiff alleged that she slipped and fell on a tar spot located on the sidewalk of a property rented by our clients where she sustained injuries that required surgery.  Plaintiff lived only four houses away, but claimed she had never seen the tar spot before, despite having lived there for fourteen years and taking daily walks in the area.  Our clients had only moved into the property three months before the fall occurred, and they had never noticed the tar spot before. Our expert engineer tested the tar spot and told the jury that it was not slippery and was not a defect.  The case was complicated by the fact that there was a dusting of snow on the ground, which plaintiff claims obscured the tar spot.  Plaintiff testified that the snow did not cause her fall, rather, it was the tar spot alone.  The eight-member jury deliberated for 25 minutes before finding no negligence.

  • Defense verdict in a case slip and fall matter.  Plaintiff claimed that, when a piece of the top step broke off unexpectedly, she tripped and fell down the steps inside of the home she rented from our clients. Our clients testified that they had no notice of a dangerous condition, and plaintiff presented no evidence that anyone had knowledge of the deterioration of the steps.  In addition, plaintiff's six prior criminal convictions for theft, forgery, criminal trespass, etc. were all admitted into evidence.  Plaintiff attempted to argue that she turned her life around shortly before the incident happened, and our incident set her back.  In closing, plaintiff's attorney labeled one of our medical experts a "paid assassin" and asked the jurors to give the plaintiff "something to celebrate."  The jury was out for less than a half hour and found that our clients were not negligent.

Classes/Seminars Taught

  • The Art of the Deposition, Pennsylvania Bar Institute, June 2015

  • Premises Liability Litigation: Focus on the Slip, Trip and Fall Case, Pennsylvania Bar Institute, November 2014

  • Trying a Case in State Court from Start to Finish, Pennsylvania Bar Institute, July 2012, June 2014

  • Preservation of Evidence--Counsel's Responsibility?, Defense Research Institute 15th Annual Personal Injury Potpourri, Philadelphia, PA, April 16, 2013

  • Handling the Slip Trip & Fall, Pennsylvania Bar Institute, August 2010, Winter 2012

  • Pennsylvania's New Joint and Several Liability Law, Pennsylvania Bar Institute, October 2011

  • Premises Liability Seminar, Pennsylvania Association for Justice, 2010

  • How the Medicare, Medicaid and SCHIP Extension Act of 2007 Will Impact our Practice, May 26, 2009

  • Accident Documentation and Investigation, 2007 to present

Published Works

  • "Production of Surveillance Evidence in Personal Injury Cases," The Legal Intelligencer, Personal Injury Supplement, November 22, 2016

  • “It’s All About the Timing...A Guide to Producing Surveillance Evidence of the Plaintiff in Personal Injury Cases,” Defense Digest, Vol. 22, No. 3, September 2016

  • "Managing a Litigation Practice From a Woman's Perspective," The Pennsylvania Lawyer, July-August, 2014

  • "Let's Spare Some Trees - Standard Discovery Requests in Philadelphia Arbitration Cases," Defense Digest, Vol. 11, No. 3, September 2005

  • "With Friends Like These, Who Needs Enemies?" Defense Digest, Vol. 10, No. 4, December 2004

  • "The Jury Can Only Follow the Instructions It's Given: An Analysis of Vallone v. Creech," Defense Digest, Vol. 9, No. 3, September 2003


  • Temple University James E. School of Law, Philadelphia, PA (J.D., 2000)

  • Ursinus College, Collegeville, PA (B.A., 1997)

    Honors: Best Paper - European Union Law, 1998
    Honors: Howard Trucksess Prize - displayed unusual promise in study of law, 1997
    Honors: Sigma Tau Delta, National English Honor Society, 1996-1997
    Major:  English

Defense Digest Article September 1, 2016
By Laurianne Falcone, Esq.* Key Points: The production of surveillance evidence to opposing counsel depends on discovery requests and timing. The trial judge has latitude to admit or exclude surveillance evidence depending on the facts...,   Defense Digest, Vol. 22, No. 3, September 2016. Defense Digest is prepared by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to...
Jul 25, 2019
We obtained a defense verdict in a three-day jury trial  in the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas. ​The 81-year-old plaintiff, who was staying at her daughter's home, alleged that she slipped and fell on water in the basement of the...
Seminar Apr 16, 2013
Topics include: Confidential Insight into the Sandusky case; PA Civil Litigation Update; Automobile Appellate Watch; Important Tips for Product Cases; Courtroom Conduct that Jurors Dislike; Deposing the Independent Witness; Unique Technology...


  • Temple University James E. Beasley School of Law (J.D., 2000)
  • Ursinus College (B.A., 1997)

Bar Admissions

  • New Jersey, 2000
  • Pennsylvania, 2000
  • U.S. District Court District of New Jersey, 2000
  • U.S. District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 2002

Associations & Memberships

  • Pennsylvania Bar Association
  • Philadelphia Association of Defense Counsel
  • Philadelphia Bar Association

Honors & Awards

  • Pennsylvania Super Lawyer Rising Star , 2005-2008, 2013-2015

    The 2016 Super Lawyers list is issued by Thompson Reuters. A description of the selection methodology can be found here. No aspect of this advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Year Joined Organization: 2001

Before you send this email please note:

You are attempting to send email, through a link on our website, to an attorney of Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin or an employee in our firm. Please note that your email may not be treated as confidential and does not create an attorney-client relationship. You should not rely upon the transmission of an email through this website if you are seeking to enter into such a relationship. Until such time as we have agreed to represent you, no information in your email will be treated as confidential. Please contact us directly by telephone at 1.800.220.3308 if it is your intent to seek legal counsel with our firm or convey confidential information.

If it is still your intent to send this email, knowing that it may not be treated as confidential, you may accept our terms of agreement by pressing "OK". If you choose not to accept these terms of agreement you may navigate away from this page by pressing "Cancel."