.

Ralph P. Bocchino

Chair, Social Services & Human Services Liability Practice

RPBocchino@mdwcg.com

Portrait of Ralph P. Bocchino

A member of the firm since 1980, Ralph P. Bocchino is a senior shareholder and the chair of Casualty Group I in Philadelphia. In this role he oversees the workflow and administration of files for 15 attorneys and support staff.

Ralph has litigated a plethora of civil defense matters in the areas of product liability, premises liability, construction law and defect litigation, and motor vehicle liability including truck and bus accidents. Ralph was formerly the chair of the firm's Amusement, Sports & Entertainment Litigation Practice and, as such, represents amusement parks and entertainment venues.

In addition to his many achievements in the Casualty Department, Ralph has also litigated defamation and legal malpractice cases. He has represented universities, special needs schools, and institutions in claims alleging sexual, physical, and emotional abuse on behalf of the Elwyn Institute and a number of 501(c)(3) non-profit organizations, individual schools and entities in all types of liability, including but not limited to child molestation and abuse. He has also counseled nursing homes in elopement and sepsis cases.

When Ralph started at the firm, he was assigned to handle asbestos matters. At the time, the firm represented Johns Mansville Corporation, the largest producer of asbestos, and Ralph was the youngest attorney in the nation to successfully defend the company. His work earned him the "Order of the Salamander Award" for litigation excellence from Johns Mansville. (Coger v. Johns Mansville Corporation, et al.)

Ralph frequently lectures for the Pennsylvania Bar Institute and the Young Lawyers Association of Philadelphia on current civil procedure and legal issues. Ralph has also lectured at LaSalle University where he taught Real Estate, Business Law and Corporation courses. He has been recognized as a Pennsylvania Super Lawyer consecutively since 2006 and holds an AV® Preeminent™ by Martindale-Hubbell rating for more than 25 years.

If Ralph is not in the office or in a courtroom, he can be found coaching various youth sports teams. Ralph is a licensed soccer coach and licensed referee. He has been coaching soccer for more than 25 years. He is the President of the Hunter Soccer Club, a non-profit youth organization in Glenside, Pennsylvania. Ralph and all of the volunteers at Hunter were honored by the Abington Community Task Force for Hunter's service to youth since 1962. Ralph was elected to the Bishop McDevitt High School "Hall of Fame" for more than 30 years of coaching, refereeing and umpiring youth sports in the community.

    • Temple University Beasley School of Law (J.D., 1979)
    • La Salle University (B.A., 1976)
    • Pennsylvania, 1979
    • U.S. District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 1979
    • U.S. Court of Appeals 3rd Circuit, 1981
    • U.S. Supreme Court, 1984
    • AV® Preeminent™ by Martindale-Hubbell®
    • Pennsylvania Super Lawyer (2006-2022)
    • Honored Member of Who's Who in Practicing Attorneys (1990)
    • "Order of the Salamander Award," 1990
    • American Bar Association
    • Justinian Society
    • Lawyers Club of Philadelphia
    • Pennsylvania Bar Association
    • Pennsylvania Defense Institute
    • Philadelphia Bar Association
    • Obtained summary judgment in a premises liability slip and fall case after their initial Rule 1036 motion had been denied. The plaintiff alleged that a metal protrusion from our clients’ property created a dangerous condition on a Philadelphia street. We first moved to dismiss on April 24, 2025, arguing that our clients had no affiliation with the property, but the court denied the motion as outside the scope of Pa.R.C.P. 1036. After efforts to secure a stipulation of dismissal were unsuccessful, we filed a second motion on December 10, 2025, asserting prejudice following the close of discovery. The Court ultimately granted the motion, resulting in summary judgment for our clients.
    • Successfully secured reconsideration following the denial of summary judgment motion in a construction accident case. The plaintiff, represented by a prominent personal injury firm, demanded $35 million. Though the court initially denied summary judgment, the team argued for reconsideration following the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision in Yoder. Two weeks before jury selection, the Court of Common Pleas granted our motion—an outcome that is highly uncommon in Philadelphia—providing a decisive victory for our clients.
    • Defense verdict for manufacturer of concrete mixers in a suit claiming defective design in a truck roll-over matter.
    • Defense verdict for a garbage truck manufacturer for alleged defective design and failure to warn a truck driver who fell from the truck and required multiple surgeries.
    • Represented a personal care home in an elopement case where a resident left the premises and was found three weeks later drowned in the Delaware River. The court granted a compulsory non-suit based on the law of Pennsylvania and personal care homes.
    • Defense verdict on behalf of a manufacturer of a saw when a worker inadvertently sawed off part of his arm in a work-related accident.
    • Was the first attorney in Philadelphia to have an Azzarello hearing granted in a product liability case. A hearing was conducted before trial and then after the motion was granted, trial was commenced with product liability removed from the case, and a defense verdict was rendered thereafter by the empanelled jury. [Azzarello deals with having a court decide if a product is defective before trial, as a matter of law and fact.]
    • Received a defense verdict representing a 'mom and pop' hair salon when one of the customers claimed that they had a severe fall down the salon steps and required a hip replacement and knee replacement surgery.
    • Defense verdict received in representing an amusement park where a teenager drowned.
    • Defense verdict in a ski death case in upstate Pennsylvania.
    • Defense verdict in an asbestos case representing Johns Mansville Corporation, the largest manufacturer of asbestos products in the world in Philadelphia County, in 1980.
    • Defense verdict for an amusement park where a young child had severe lacerations and fractures from being injured in a sliding board accident.
    • Defense verdict in a gymnastics accident involving allegations of torn hamstrings, ruptured piriformus muscle and low back surgery following alleged improper stretching and warm-up exercises by a gymnastics instructor and coach.
    • Argued before the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in an elevator accident case trying to maintain a Rule 50(A) Motion, which was granted at trial by the trial court, involving multiple back surgeries following an elevator accident.
    • Two defense verdicts in fraud matters involving staged automobile accidents.
    • Hills and Ridges Doctrine and discussion of Collins v. Philadelphia Suburban Development Co., Client Seminar, May 2018
    • Lights, Camera, Evidence!, Pennsylvania Bar Institute (PBI), Philadelphia PA, December 5, 2017
    • Accident Prevention and Investigation: Strategies for Risk Mitigation, Client Presentation, April 2017
    • Risk Shifting and Indemnity and Additional Insured Status, Ohio Casualty, April 2013
    • Nuances of the Political Subdivision Torts Claims Act, Ohio Casualty, April 2013
    • Dram Shop Liquor Liability, Markel Insurance Co. and Markel International Insurance, August 2011
    • The New Fair Share Act, Markel Insurance Co. and Markel International Insurance, August 2011
    • Comparative Negligence Act of Pennsylvania; Alternatives in Discovery; Jury Verdicts and Jury Issues in Philadelphia and Outlying Counties, Ohio Casualty, April 2010
    • Potpourri, "The Black Box," discuss varying topics including computer chips and information, equipment in various vehicles, automobiles, and trucks (2005/2007).
    • Discovery, Rules of Civil Procedure and Bad Faith in Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania Bar Institute
    • Releases and Uniform Contribution Among Joint Tortfeasors Act, LaSalle Alumni Law Luncheon
    • Discovery Techniques and Trial Techniques, Young Lawyers Association of Philadelphia
    • Risk Shifting and Indemnity and Additional Insured Status, Ohio Casualty, April 2013
    • “MAP-21 and the Role of Black-Box Recorders in Discovery,”  The Legal Intelligencer, June 5, 2012
    • "When Pucks and Foul Balls Fly No Duty Rule of Pennsylvania," Pennsylvania Law Weekly, 2002
    • "Punitive Damages and Deceased Defendants," Pennsylvania Law Weekly, March 8, 1999 and, Defense Digest, Vol 4, No. 6, 1998
    • "The Blizzard's Backlash: A Symposium on Issues Confronting Pennsylvania and New Jersey Property Owners," Co-Author, Defense Digest, March, 1996
    • "Challenges to Venue Produce Positive Result," Defense Digest, Fall, 1992
    • Obtained summary judgment in a premises liability slip and fall case after their initial Rule 1036 motion had been denied. The plaintiff alleged that a metal protrusion from our clients’ property created a dangerous condition on a Philadelphia street. We first moved to dismiss on April 24, 2025, arguing that our clients had no affiliation with the property, but the court denied the motion as outside the scope of Pa.R.C.P. 1036. After efforts to secure a stipulation of dismissal were unsuccessful, we filed a second motion on December 10, 2025, asserting prejudice following the close of discovery. The Court ultimately granted the motion, resulting in summary judgment for our clients.
    • Successfully secured reconsideration following the denial of summary judgment motion in a construction accident case. The plaintiff, represented by a prominent personal injury firm, demanded $35 million. Though the court initially denied summary judgment, the team argued for reconsideration following the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision in Yoder. Two weeks before jury selection, the Court of Common Pleas granted our motion—an outcome that is highly uncommon in Philadelphia—providing a decisive victory for our clients.
    • Defense verdict for manufacturer of concrete mixers in a suit claiming defective design in a truck roll-over matter.
    • Defense verdict for a garbage truck manufacturer for alleged defective design and failure to warn a truck driver who fell from the truck and required multiple surgeries.
    • Represented a personal care home in an elopement case where a resident left the premises and was found three weeks later drowned in the Delaware River. The court granted a compulsory non-suit based on the law of Pennsylvania and personal care homes.
    • Defense verdict on behalf of a manufacturer of a saw when a worker inadvertently sawed off part of his arm in a work-related accident.
    • Was the first attorney in Philadelphia to have an Azzarello hearing granted in a product liability case. A hearing was conducted before trial and then after the motion was granted, trial was commenced with product liability removed from the case, and a defense verdict was rendered thereafter by the empanelled jury. [Azzarello deals with having a court decide if a product is defective before trial, as a matter of law and fact.]
    • Received a defense verdict representing a 'mom and pop' hair salon when one of the customers claimed that they had a severe fall down the salon steps and required a hip replacement and knee replacement surgery.
    • Defense verdict received in representing an amusement park where a teenager drowned.
    • Defense verdict in a ski death case in upstate Pennsylvania.
    • Defense verdict in an asbestos case representing Johns Mansville Corporation, the largest manufacturer of asbestos products in the world in Philadelphia County, in 1980.
    • Defense verdict for an amusement park where a young child had severe lacerations and fractures from being injured in a sliding board accident.
    • Defense verdict in a gymnastics accident involving allegations of torn hamstrings, ruptured piriformus muscle and low back surgery following alleged improper stretching and warm-up exercises by a gymnastics instructor and coach.
    • Argued before the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in an elevator accident case trying to maintain a Rule 50(A) Motion, which was granted at trial by the trial court, involving multiple back surgeries following an elevator accident.
    • Two defense verdicts in fraud matters involving staged automobile accidents.
    • OSHA 10-Hour Construction Certification

Results

View all

Dismissal Secured in Food Poisoning and Hepatitis A Case

We successfully obtained dismissal of their client in a death-from-food-poisoning and hepatitis A case. The plaintiff, Joyce Neeld, executrix of the Estate of Alfred Neeld, alleged that Mr. Neeld passed away due to an outbreak of hepatitis A in southeast Pennsylvania, which was widely covered by the news at the time. The plaintiff, who claimed that Mr. Neeld passed away after eating at Gino’s Pizzeria and Ristorante, was seeking several million dollars from every food provider that served the restaurant, including our client. Fortunately, the plaintiff stipulated to our dismissal.

Summary Judgment Granted in Major Jury Case Involving Serious Injuries

We successfully argued a motion for summary judgment on a major jury case where we represented a tenant shop owner. The plaintiff opposed our motion, alleging, inter alia, serious injuries to a shoulder and surgery. There were many moving pieces in this case, including indemnity issues, an alleged triple net lease and joinder after the statute of limitations. The plaintiff tripped and fell on a sidewalk that was under repair outside of our client’s store. We were joined by the original defendant, the landlord. We argued the plaintiff had no direct cause of action against us as we were joined after the statute of limitations; there was no evidence of record of our involvement as plaintiff did not visit our store; we were not responsible for the sidewalk repair; and the original defendant landlord was responsible for the sidewalk in question as the lease was ambiguous as to who was responsible for external repairs.   

Firm Highlights

Thought Leadership

Marijuana Legalization and Workplace Risk: What New Jersey Employers Need to Know

While the legalization of recreational marijuana usage poses a risk of increased work-related accidents for younger workers, employers can work to curb this increase by investing in education, effective drug policies, and employee assistance programs.

News

John J. Hare Featured in Pennsylvania & Delaware Super Lawyers Magazine

Result

Summary Judgment Secured, Preserving $750,000 in Coverage for Insured in Major Trucking Liability Dispute

Ray Freudiger and Michael A. Roberts (both of Cincinnati) successfully obtained summary judgment on behalf of their client in a coverage dispute arising from a May 19, 2022, motor vehicle accident. A permissive driver operated a box truck for an interstate trucking company and caused severe injuries to two tort victims. Prior to the accident, the insured had procured a commercial auto policy for the trucking company with stated limits of $1,000,000. Following the accident, the insurer initiated a declaratory judgment action asserting that only reduced bodily injury limits of $25,000/$50,000 applied and later counterclaimed, alleging it would not have insured the driver had he been properly submitted for approval under the policy. After extensive discovery, briefing, and oral argument, the court rejected the insurer’s attempt to shift responsibility for the $750,000 in coverage it was legally required to provide for permissive drivers under Ohio law, granting summary judgment in favor of the insured and preserving $750,000 in liability exposure.

graphic with Maria Granaudo photo text announces she has joined the firm as a shareholder in the Health Care Dept.

News

Maria R. Granaudo Joins Marshall Dennehey’s Wilmington Office As a Shareholder in the Health Care Department

News

Christina Gonzales To Speak at the Women of Color Roundtable at DRI’s Diversity and Inclusion Seminar

Result

No-Cause Jury Verdict Secured in Wrongful Death Trial

We successfully obtained a no-cause jury verdict in a 13-day wrongful death trial. The decedent, a 59-year-old man, was admitted to the emergency room on February 15, 2019, with complaints of abdominal pain, decreased appetite, and constipation, despite the use of laxatives. The patient did not complain of any nausea, vomiting, or diarrhea. He had a significant medical history including diabetes, hypertension, prior coronary artery stenting, morbid obesity (with past gastric bypass surgery), longstanding ventral hernia, and back pain. A CT scan revealed multiple hernias and a potential closed-loop bowel obstruction, leading to a surgery consultation. Our client, an emergency general surgeon, interpreted that the patient did not have a closed loop or any significant obstruction and recommended non-surgical management. The patient was approved to have clear liquids, and had a vomiting incident shortly after, but our client was not notified. The patient was returned to NPO status, and after improving overnight, he was returned to “clears” and additional medical and renal consults were ordered. Our client did not receive any communications from the residents/nurses of any changes in the patient’s condition. On February 18, 2019, two rapid responses were called due to increased heart rate and vomiting. It is believed that the vomiting resulted in aspiration, causing sepsis, ultimately leading to the patient’s death. During the trial, the plaintiff’s sole medical expert highlighted imaging on the wrong hernia, which called into question all of his opinions in the case. We made key objections related to the expert testimony, limiting what the allegations were, and preventing new allegations from being made. After approximately two and a half hours of deliberating, the jury returned a no-cause verdict. 

blue facade of a hospital sign against blue sky

Result

Defense Verdict in Complex Medical Malpractice Trial

Thought Leadership

PA Middle District Dismisses Claims Against School District and its Superintendent, Principal, Special Education Director, and Classroom Teacher

A five-year-old special education student was enrolled in the Wyoming Valley West School District and attended the State Street Elementary School during the 2024-2025 school year. The student refused to clean up classroom toys at dismissal. When his teacher allegedly grabbed him by the wrist to walk him back to his seat, the student dropped to the floor and began crying. The teacher then allegedly grabbed the student by the ankle and dragged him across the floor. Following an investigation, criminal charges were not advanced by the county DA, and the school permitted the teacher to return to the classroom. The student’s parents sued, lodging thirteen legal counts under both state and federal law, which sought monetary damages from the teacher, the school district, the superintendent, the principal, and the director of special education. The plaintiff’s 42 USC 1983 claims were dismissed as to the school district for failure to allege a policy or custom violation, and the failure to alleged deliberate indifference in the failure-to-train context. As to the superintendent, building principal, and special education director, the Section 1983 claims were also dismissed for failure to allege personal involvement on the part of the individuals. Regarding an equal protection claim asserted against all defendants, the motion to dismiss was also granted for a failure to advance a plausible equal protection claim, holding that “plaintiffs' single-act allegations do not include a factual basis to even infer that the act was motivated by discriminatory animus rather than some other non-discriminatory impulse.” The court further dismissed the plaintiff’s negligence-based claims including negligence against the teacher and district administrators, NIED, and vicarious liability under the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act (PSTCA). The federal claims under the IDEA, Section 504, and the ADA were also dismissed in various respects. The IDEA claim was dismissed against all defendants with prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The Section 504 claims against the individual defendants were also dismissed with prejudice, as districts, not individuals, are the recipients of federal funds under Section 504. However, the Section 504 and ADA claims were dismissed without prejudice as to defendant Wyoming Valley West, and the plaintiff was permitted leave to amend.

Thought Leadership

U.S. Supreme Court Decides Key Issue Regarding Interstate Freight Broker Liability

Freight brokers are intermediaries.  They connect shippers of goods with trucking companies that transport those goods.  Freight brokers match a load of freight with a trucking company and oversee the logistics of the transportation. For a number of years there has been a division among the Federal Circuits regarding the potential liability of freight brokers when the trucking companies that they retain for interstate loads are involved in accidents.  At the center of this division was the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994 (FAAAA).  Some Federal Circuit Courts have held that state law negligent hiring claims against freight brokers were preempted by the FAAAA .  Other Federal Circuits Courts have held that even if preemption applied, the “safety exception” in the FAAAA saved state law negligent hiring claims from federal preemption.  On May 14, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed the conflict in Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC, et al, No24-1238. In that case freight broker C.H. Robinson selected Caribe Transport to haul an interstate load. The commercial truck driver employed by Caribe Transport allegedly caused an accident and the plaintiff, Montgomery, was seriously injured. Montgomery brought an action against the driver, Caribe Transport and C.H. Robinson. The allegation against C.H. Robinson was that it negligently retained Caribe Transport when it knew, or should have known, that it was an unsafe company. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals held that Montgomery’s claims against C.H. Robinson were preempted by the FAAAA. The plaintiff appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.  The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision focused primarily on the safety exception in the FAAAA.  That provision provides that the FAAAA preemption “…shall not restrict the safety regulatory authority of a State with respect to motor vehicles.” C.H. Robinson argued, as freight brokers historically have, that their function was not “with respect to motor vehicles” because they do not own trucks or employ drivers. They are merely intermediaries, connecting entities who need freight moved with entities who can do that job. Therefore, C.H. Robinson argued that preemption applied, not the safety exception. The U.S. Supreme Court did not accept that argument. The Court focused on the meaning of the phrase “with respect to” in the safety exception. The Court held that it means “referring to”, “concerning” or “regarding”. Therefore, writing for a unanimous Court, Justice Barrett concluded that “[r]equiring C.H. Robinson to exercise ordinary care in selecting a carrier therefore “concerns” motor vehicles—most obviously, the trucks that will transport the goods. So, Montgomery’s negligent-hiring claim falls within the FAAAA’s safety exception, which saves it from preemption.” Justice Kavanaugh, in his concurring opinion, noted the effect this ruling may have on freight brokers and their insurers throughout the country: Importantly, the Court's decision today should not be read to mean that brokers will routinely be subject to state tort liability in the wake of truck accidents. As even plaintiff's counsel stressed, brokers should be able to successfully defend against state tort suits if the brokers have acted reasonably and arranged transportation with reputable trucking companies. Tr. of Oral Arg. 27-29. In plaintiff's counsel's words, the brokers "just have to hire carriers that actually have a reasonable policy," and "the broker is not going to have a problem if it's asking the hard questions of the carrier." Id., at 42, 45. In addition, the proximate-cause requirement in typical state tort law should help protect brokers from excessive liability. Id., at 25. That said, the brokers rightly caution against naivete. In the real world, as the brokers forcefully respond, state tort law can be unpredictable, and the costs to brokers of litigation and insurance may be significant even when brokers prevail in lawsuits. Moreover, the costs of litigation and insurance, as well as the costs of brokers' conducting more substantial inquiries into trucking companies, will cascade through the economy and be paid in part by American consumers in the form of higher prices. The concerns expressed by the brokers are legitimate and weighty. The key point here is that freight brokers can no longer claim they are protected from negligent retention claims by the FAAAA (in cases involving interstate transportation). The challenge will be to determine what is considered ”reasonable efforts” used by brokers when retaining transportation companies. 

Event

29th Annual FDLA Florida Liability Claims Conference

Jim and Erica will team up to present, "Supporting the Next Generation: Connecting with Associates." This panel-style presentation will explore communication best practices from the perspective of a senior shareholder and newer associate. The discussion will focus on the communication styles of different generations and effective strategies to avoid communication breakdowns. Topics to be discussed include the hiring process, perceptions of defense work among newer lawyers, work-life balance issues after hiring, and mentoring.