Casualty

We secured a unanimous, precedential decision upholding a venue transfer from Philadelphia to Butler County under forum non conveniens, setting a new standard for defendants after a series of appellate reversals.

We obtained a defense verdict in a slip and fall case which allegedly occurred in a New York supermarket. The plaintiff, a supermarket employee, claimed that he slipped and fell on water from a floor washing machine being used to clean the floors. During investigation of the claim, we discovered that the plaintiff slipped and fell on water from frozen food that he was unpacking. At trial, we successfully argued to preclude the plaintiff’s expert from testifying that the floor washing machine was leaking water in that this expert never inspected the floor washing machine. As the plaintiff never produced witnesses of the accident or photographs of the accident location, the jury rendered a defense verdict in 26 minutes.

We obtained dismissal of our client via preliminary objections in a significant product liability matter. The plaintiffs were seriously injured in a workplace accident involving a tile packaging machine. Despite the plaintiffs asserting that original process was properly served on our client, we successfully argued to the court that the purported certified mail receipt was never signed by an agent of our client and, in fact, simply said “COVID-19” on the signature block. The court sustained our objections and dismissed the case as to our client.

We successfully convinced the Pennsylvania Superior Court to affirm the trial court’s decision to sustain preliminary objections and dismiss a wrongful death case involving allegation of negligent transmission of COVID-19. The plaintiff alleged that his elderly parents contracted COVID-19 from employees of our client who were providing non-medical, in-home care services, and that his parents ultimately died from the disease. In affirming the trial court’s dismissal of the action, the Superior Court held that no duty to prevent transmission of an illness exists under current Pennsylvania law, and that no new duty should be created under these circumstances.

We secured a unanimous defense verdict in a premises liability case where an intoxicated social guest fell down stairs at the defendant’s home. As the plaintiff supplied her own alcohol and was dutifully cared for by the defendants after her intoxication, the jury found for our client.

We secured summary judgment in an auto negligence case, in which we represented a car sharing app and an individual vehicle owner who rented our his car using the app. The plaintiff alleged that, under Florida’s Dangerous Instrumentality Doctrine, the app and the owner were vicariously liable for the renter of the vehicle, who allegedly struck the plaintiff’s vehicle. We successfully argued that the Graves Amendment preempts the application of the dangerous instrumentality doctrine and exempts our clients from vicarious liability for the alleged negligence of the driver.

We obtained a defense verdict in a premises liability case where the plaintiff alleged that she tripped and fell on the defendant’s row home stairs outside the property. After less than an hour of deliberations, the jury found negligence, but no causation for the plaintiff’s injuries.

We secured a motion for summary judgment in a significant workplace injury case involving a Laidlow claim. The court ruled that the plaintiff had failed to establish that his employer had committed an intentional and malicious act sufficient to circumvent the workers’ compensation exclusivity provision.

We obtained a defense verdict following a 10-day jury trial on behalf of a national home improvement company and garden center, where the plaintiff’s demand was over seven figures. The plaintiff, a 79-year-old female, was using a rollator (walker) to assist her walking when she fell at a garden center. Plaintiff claimed that the front wheel of her rollator struck and got caught on the raised baseplate bolts of a column, causing her to fall.  The plaintiff was taken out on a stretcher with a fractured leg that required ORIF surgery and a recommendation for future hip replacement.     The defense established—via an in-store surveillance video, forensic engineering expert and cross-examination—that it was very unlikely that the plaintiff's rollator ever came into contact with the baseplate.  Furthermore, even if  the plaintiff did contact the baseplate, it was due to her being inattentive and not as a result of any alleged negligence by the garden center. The jury returned a defense verdict after only 35 minutes of deliberation.

We won summary judgment on behalf of a retail store in a slip and fall case in Ohio. The plaintiff alleged serious injuries as a result of slipping and falling on a spill of an oil substance in the parking lot, right outside the front entrance doors. The plaintiff argued that she was pushing a shopping cart and alleged that pushing a shopping cart creates an attendant circumstance that blocked her vision. We successfully argued that the act of pushing a cart does not qualify as an attendant circumstance, as the customer has the ability to see the parking lot ahead of a grocery cart and pushing a cart was a situation the plaintiff regularly encountered. Further, the oil spill was wide in nature and darker in color than the asphalt. It was observable had the plaintiff looked and, therefore, qualified as an open and obvious condition. Summary judgment was granted on behalf of our client. 

The plaintiff included a count seeking to pierce the corporate veil and pursue the principals of the liquor licensee under an enterprise theory of liability. We argued that there is no cause of action for corporate veil piercing under an enterprise theory; rather, these theories are used to recover if, and only if, the entity is not able to satisfy any judgment against it. The court dismissed the count.

We obtained a summary judgment on behalf of our client in a trip and fall matter where the plaintiff tripped and fell on a raised sidewalk in front of the defendant’s private residence. The plaintiff suffered significant injuries, including a displaced fracture of the shoulder and humeral head fracture, requiring a complete shoulder reverse arthroplasty. The plaintiff’s demand was $750,000. The defendants asserted that it is undisputed they did NOT perform any work, maintenance or construction to the sidewalk prior to the plaintiff's alleged fall in May 2020, thereby, creating or exacerbating a condition on the sidewalk which would have contributed to or caused the plaintiff's fall. The general rule is that a residential property owner owes no duty to keep a sidewalk abutting his property in repair. Norris v. Borough of Leonia, 160 N.J. 427, 431 (1999). While the court has created an exception to the rule of non-liability in the case of an abutting commercial property owner, as in Stewart v. 104 Wallace Street, Inc., 87 N.J. 146 (1981), it has consistently declined to extend that liability rule to abutting residential and nonprofit owners. Additionally, New Jersey Courts have recognized that "[r]esidential homeowners can safely rely on the fact that they will not be liable unless they create or exacerbate a dangerous sidewalk condition…." Luchejko v. City of Hoboken, 207 N.J. 191, 210 (2011). The judge found that there were no genuine issues of material fact to support a theory of liability on behalf of the defendants and granted our motion for summary judgment.

The plaintiff, a major medical provider, filed suit in Suffolk County’s 3rd District Court in the total amount of $14,999.99, claiming our insurance company client owed it for the claimant’s unpaid medical billing. The claimant was involved in a motor vehicle accident and sought payment for medical treatment. Counsel for the medical provider argued that, since the billing was never paid by the insurer, it was due in full—despite the same matter having been successfully argued and won in arbitration in June of 2021. However, after successful arguments and motion practice, and without significant opposition by plaintiff’s counsel, the matter was dismissed, in full, by the court, which found that both res judicata and collateral estoppel applied. Therefore, the court found in full favor of our client and dismissed the suit and its accompanying complaint.

By Order dated April 5, 2023, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania refused to review the Superior Court’s affirmance of a 2021 nonsuit obtained by Jack Delany in hotly contested litigation stemming from the death of a construction worker. John Hare and Shane Haselbarth handled the appeal along with Jack. The Supreme Court’s ruling ends more than five years of litigation that arose from the construction worker’s death while he was involved in the Pier 78 renovation project on the Delaware River in Philadelphia. The plaintiff sued the general contractor and others involved in the project and ultimately settled with the general contractor for $10.5 million. The general contractor then pursued a contractual indemnification claim against Jack Delany’s concrete subcontractor client on the Pier 78 project. The indemnification claim included the $10.5 million settlement plus approximately $1 million in attorneys’ fees.   The case proceeded to trial in 2021 and, at the close of the general contractor’s case-in-chief, Jack moved for and was granted a nonsuit on the basis that the general contractor was the deceased construction workers’ statutory employer pursuant to the five-element test set forth by the PA Supreme Court in McDonald v. Levinson Steel, 153 A. 424 (Pa. 1930). The case was especially notable because, rather than retaining an attorney to address the reasonableness of the amount of the underlying settlement, which is typical, Jack retained an economist to explain that, based upon his analysis of comparable cases, the settlement amount was excessive. The general contractor appealed the nonsuit. In an unanimous decision dated September 30, 2022, the Superior Court affirmed. The Supreme Court denial of allowance of appeal brings the lengthy litigation to an end.    

Our appellate attorneys were victorious in the Pennsylvania Superior Court, which granted a judgment notwithstanding the verdict and nullified a $5.6 million judgment in a construction accident case. In a unanimous, precedential opinion, the court ruled that the general contractor represented by our attorneys was the plaintiff’s statutory employer and, thus, immune from suit. Yoder v. McCarthy Constr., Inc., 2023 PA Super 13 (Pa. Super. 2023).

We obtained a defense verdict in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in a case where the plaintiff sought $24.1M for alleged property damages and lost revenue.     In 2014, our client defendant, a marine construction company, was retained by the U.S. Navy to conduct pile driving activities at the Philadelphia Navy Yard. The plaintiff, a neighboring commercial property owner, alleged that our client's pile driving and related activities damaged its property and caused it to lose revenue. All other defendants settled before trial. The plaintiff claimed $20 million in damages against our client. A bifurcated trial began on January 17, 2023. The plaintiff’s demand dropped throughout the nine-day liability phase, which involved numerous scientific and engineering experts and other witnesses. On January 27, 2023, the jury returned its unanimous verdict, attributing 60% of the fault to plaintiff itself and 25% to the Navy, which resulted in a defense verdict for our client. As a result of the defense verdict on liability, there will be no damages phase.  

The plaintiff alleged that his client and a neighboring property owner were responsible for water and septic intrusions onto the plaintiff’s property. The three Bucks County properties formed a large triangle between two roads in Perkasie, Pennsylvania. The plaintiff’s complaints against his neighbors went back over seven years. We argued the trespass onto the plaintiff’s property was permanent in nature and was barred under the statute of limitations, and that the plaintiff’s experts failed to establish the intrusion emanated from our client’s property.

The plaintiff pet owners brought claims of emotional/bystander distress and recklessness against the delivery service after personally witnessing the incident that tragically killed their family dog. We filed a Motion to Strike (equivalent of 12b(6) in State of Connecticut Superior Court, Judicial District of Fairfield at Bridgeport), citing appellate authority that, because dogs are personal property and bystander distress arises out of human-to-human relationships, plaintiffs were barred from alleging and recovering any kind of emotional distress damages. Only the fair market value purchase cost of the pet should be permitted. The plaintiffs cited recent trial court decisions allowing such claims and going against the grain of older appellate cases. After oral argument the court sided with the defense, agreeing that for important policy concerns the plaintiff cannot prevail because the plaintiffs were asking the court to legislate and make law beyond its authoritative powers.

We obtained a published decision in the New Jersey Appellate Division reversing the denial of a motion to dismiss because of a lack of duty. The plaintiff’s ex-husband drove through the gate at a large, high-rise apartment complex, waited for plaintiff to arrive, and then shot her in the face. Our client was the former management company which ceased its management obligations 17 days before the shooting, when a successor management company took over. The plaintiff argued that our client was negligent based on procedures for securing the lot it put in place when it managed the property. We sought summary judgment, arguing a lack of duty due to the expiration of a management contract. The Law Division judge denied that motion, asserting there were genuine issues of fact and that the jury had to decide whether a duty existed. We persuaded the Appellate Division to grant interlocutory appeal, and then we successfully argued for a reversal. First, the Appellate Division agreed with us that the trial judge erred by holding that the existence of a duty was a jury question and not a question for the court to decide as a matter of law. Second, the Appellate Division held that, since our client no longer had any rights or responsibilities over the security of the premises when the shooting happened, and because there was no indication that the successor management company or the owner of the property could not have changed the procedures which our client had put in place, the former management company owed no duty to the plaintiff and that summary judgment was therefore appropriate.

The action was brought against an out-of-state insurer based on the plaintiff’s failure to arbitrate. The plaintiff filed suit against a New Jersey insurance company over treatment that occurred in Florida. However, the subject policy and the laws of New Jersey require mandatory arbitration prior to initiating litigation. On the defendant’s motion to dismiss and compel arbitration, the court found that the doctrine of lex loci contractus applied, which required the plaintiff to comply with New Jersey law and policy and to submit to arbitration prior to filing suit. The court entered a final order dismissing the case and compelling the plaintiff to complete binding arbitration.

We convinced the Superior Court of Pennsylvania to unanimously reverse a Philadelphia trial court’s refusal to compel arbitration of a claim against a nationally recognized online coupon marketing platform. The plaintiff claimed the company was responsible for an alleged sexual assault during a massage that the plaintiff’s son purchased on the coupon platform and gifted to the plaintiff. The Superior Court ruled that the plaintiff was a third-party beneficiary of the agreement between her son and the company and she was, therefore, bound by the arbitration clause in the agreement.

We obtained a favorable decision dismissing all claims and cross-claims brought against a car rental company in a motor vehicle accident case in Philadelphia. The plaintiff’s complaint alleged several injuries, and she sued several defendants, including our client, the rental car company that owned one of the vehicles involved in the accident. Citing to the rental agreement and the policies covering the rental vehicle, we argued that the car rental driver was not authorized to operate the vehicle as he rented the vehicle under false pretenses, permitted an unauthorized driver to operate the vehicle, and operated the vehicle for hire in violation of the policies. The court ruled in our client’s favor, finding there was no coverage under the policies pursuant to the policy language and Pennsylvania case law. 

We prevailed on a motion for summary judgment in favor of a project manager in a serious bicycle accident lawsuit. The plaintiff was thrown off his bike after striking a significant pothole in front of a building where our client performed work several years earlier. We successfully argued that the plaintiff’s alleged attempts to connect our client with the existence of the pothole were far too attenuated to be of any assistance to a jury. Following oral argument the judge agreed and granted summary judgment.

The lawsuit involved claims of child abuse committed by a pastor that occurred during church-based camp activities. We obtained a dismissal of all counts for abuse filed by all plaintiffs against our client, one of the church defendants. Our client did not employ the pastor when the abuse occurred and had no knowledge of the claims asserted.

We obtained dismissal, with prejudice, of a wrongful death and survival action against a home aide care service. The plaintiff filed an action alleging that employees of our client transmitted COVID-19 to his elderly parents and that, as a result, both of the plaintiff’s decedents passed away. We filed preliminary objections on the grounds that Pennsylvania does not recognize a duty to prevent a ubiquitous, communicable virus such as COVID-19, that the tort claims were barred by the gist of the action doctrine, and on the grounds that the allegations do not give rise to punitive damages.

The alleged incident occurred outside of a school construction site. We received a favorable decision of a pre-answer motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint while simultaneously succeeding in defending against the plaintiff’s cross-motion seeking leave to file a late notice of claim. The plaintiff filed a summons and complaint, alleging a trip and fall over several cinderblocks located outside of a construction site. In the pre-answer motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint, we argued that the plaintiff failed to comply with the New York General Municipal Law, which requires the plaintiff to satisfy several preconditions prior to commencing an action against a public corporation, including filing a notice of claim within 90 days after accrual of the claim and performance of a 50-H hearing. The plaintiff opposed and cross-moved, seeking leave to file a late notice of claim. We opposed, arguing that should the late filing of a notice of claim be granted, the defendant would incur substantial prejudice as the incident occurred over a year prior and the defendant would not be able to properly conduct the necessary pre-suit investigation, as is the intent of the preconditions prescribed by New York General Municipal Law. The judge granted our motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint and denied the plaintiff’s motion seeking leave to file a late notice of claim. 

We obtained a defense verdict in a two-week jury trial in Middlesex County, New Jersey, in a case against a tavern alleged to have violated the New Jersey Licensed Alcoholic Beverage Server Fair Liability Act (aka The Dram Shop Act). The plaintiff claimed the bar violated the Act by serving a patron—a settled co-defendant—alcohol while he was visibly intoxicated, resulting in that patron driving drunk and colliding with the plaintiff’s vehicle. The plaintiff suffered significant injuries to her neck, requiring two cervical fusion surgeries. Police were unable to obtain objective proof of the patron’s blood alcohol concentration (BAC) via a blood sample or breathalyzer. The tavern had no record of the patron, who paid cash for his beverages, and first learned of the accident upon being served with a complaint more than nine months later.  At trial, the plaintiff relied on the patron’s deposition testimony as to the timing of three different drinks he consumed at the bar, as well as a toxicology expert, to prove liability. The expert, in providing an opinion as to what the patron’s BAC would have been “while at or when leaving the bar,” used a dose reconstruction methodology based upon the patron’s testimony. However, on cross-examination, we were able to establish that the expert’s calculations of the amount of pure alcohol ingested by the patron were erroneous and unreliable and that the expert never provided an opinion as to whether the patron was visibly intoxicated at the time of service—the key issue in any Dram Shop case.  We also presented a credible toxicology expert on behalf of the defendant, who provided the jury a visual timeline of events to demonstrate that at the time the patron was last served alcohol (more than an hour before the accident), his BAC would have been well below the .15 threshold whereby most people would show visible signs of intoxication. We further argued that, despite any sympathy the jury may feel for the plaintiff, she failed to meet her burden of proving that the patron was exhibiting “clear signs of intoxication” at the time of service, as required by the statute. The jury agreed.  

The applicant, a major medical provider, filed joint arbitration matters in the aggregate amount of $46,095.41, claiming our client owed it for the claimant’s unpaid medical bills. The claimant had been involved in a motor vehicle accident and sought payment for medical treatment. Counsel for the medical provider argued that the original denial basis was insufficient to deny the payment of the claims. However, after our successful argument at the arbitration hearing, our client’s policy of insurance was found to be completely and properly exhausted. Therefore, the arbitrator found in full favor of our client and denied the applicant’s entire claim, on both matters.

We successfully defended an appeal of a trial court grant of summary judgment in favor of a nail salon in a slip-and-fall case. The plaintiff alleged she fell in an untreated wet area inside the salon on a rainy day. However, the plaintiff failed to produce any evidence about the source of the “wet area,” or that the salon had actual or constructive knowledge of the wet area prior to the plaintiff’s fall. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the salon and the Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed that decision.

The plaintiff’s decedent was shot and killed while allegedly on his way home from school. We  were able to prove that the young man was a trespasser on the common area of the property where he was shot, even though his aunt was a tenant in the apartment complex. The decedent’s family claimed he was on his way to see her. Our investigation revealed that he was connected to local gangs and that, at the time of his shooting, he was wearing a ski mask (in Florida) and carrying a hand gun.