.

Case Law Alerts

Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment Was Denied As Its Truck Was Stolen and the Thieving Driver Caused an Accident and Injury to the Plaintiff.

Sipple v. Richards and Sam’s Construction, 2024 WL 3161572, No. N23C-01-213 (FJJ) (Del. Super. Ct. June 25, 2024)

October 1, 2024

This action involved a motor vehicle collision where the defendant’s (Sam’s Construction) construction vehicle was stolen by the co-defendant, M. Richards, who caused an accident injuring the plaintiff. Sam’s employee had left the construction vehicle unlocked, with the keys in the center console. 

In analyzing the issue of “[f]oreseeable thieves,” the court determined the plaintiff raised sufficient facts to defeat summary judgment. The court focused on the fact that it was a construction vehicle parked in front of a convenience store, with foot traffic, and the keys were clearly visible to anyone who looked into the truck. For these reasons, Sam’s motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of the complaint against it was denied. 

 

Case Law Alerts, 4th Quarter, October 2024 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. Copyright © 2024 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.

Firm Highlights

business meeting photo

Result

Summary Judgment Obtained in Insurance Coverage Case

Thought Leadership

Constructive Notice of Dangerous Intersection Presents Jury Question

In an action arising out of a motor vehicle accident, the plaintiff alleged that a dangerous condition at an intersection in Bethel Township contributed to a December 1, 2020 collision between a sedan and a tractor-trailer. Leger claimed the Township negligently placed and maintained a stop sign on Shirksville Road where sight distance was allegedly only 300 feet rather than the required 500 feet, and that the Township had actual or constructive notice of this hazardous condition. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the Township, concluding Leger failed to present sufficient evidence of notice. Leger v. Martin, No. 253 C.D. 2025 (Pa. Commw. Ct. May 19, 2026). The Commonwealth Court reversed and remanded, holding that actual or constructive notice under the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act is generally a question of fact for the jury. The Court found Leger produced sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue regarding constructive notice, including evidence that the Township was responsible for the roadway and stop sign, regularly inspected and maintained the sign, had replaced it before the accident, and, according to expert testimony, should have recognized the inadequate sight distance through reasonable inspection. The Court further held that evidence of prior similar crashes at the intersection supported an inference of constructive notice, making summary judgment inappropriate because reasonable minds could differ as to whether the dangerous condition was apparent and should have been discovered by the Township.

Marshall Dennehey Named a Standout in Litigation by BTI Consulting Group

News

Marshall Dennehey Named a Standout in Litigation by BTI Consulting Group

Marshall Dennehey Shareholders Recognized as Florida Trend Legal Elite Notable Women Leaders in Law

News

Marshall Dennehey Shareholders Recognized as Florida Trend Legal Elite Notable Women Leaders in Law

Bret E. Dubbert Joins Marshall Dennehey’s Orlando Office as Special Counsel in the Casualty Department

News

Bret E. Dubbert Joins Marshall Dennehey’s Orlando Office as Special Counsel in the Casualty Department

Event

CLM 2026 Focus Conference

Allison joins three insurance industry leaders to discuss how cyber coverage disputes, the growing impact of social inflation on bodily injury claim valuation, and the use of artificial intelligence are reshaping the bad faith landscape. The panel will examine emerging sources of extra-contractual exposure, including evolving cyber insurance coverage issues and the challenges of accurately valuing bodily injury claims. Practical approaches to claim evaluation using AI, along with defense strategies designed to help prevent or successfully defend against bad faith litigation, will also be addressed. 

Thought Leadership

Mental Health Records Shielded from Discovery in Personal Injury Action

In a personal injury action, the plaintiff sought damages for physical injuries allegedly sustained in an April 11, 2024 motor vehicle accident. During her deposition, Plaintiff testified that the accident aggravated preexisting injuries for which she had previously treated at Wilkes-Barre General Hospital and that she also received treatment at Moses Taylor Hospital after the accident. Defendants subpoenaed records from both facilities, excluding mental health and psychiatric records, while Plaintiff objected on the ground that protected mental health information could be disclosed. Moreck v. Karns, No. 2025 CV 1140 (Pa. Ct. Com. Pl. Lackawanna Cnty.), The Court granted Defendants’ motion to overrule Plaintiff’s objections to the subpoenas, except as to records protected by the Mental Health Procedures Act (MHPA). The Court held that Plaintiff’s medical records from both hospitals were relevant and discoverable because her deposition testimony placed those physical injuries at issue, but that she had not placed her mental health condition at issue and therefore had not waived MHPA confidentiality protections. The Court also granted Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendant Karns to provide overdue discovery responses within twenty days, but denied Plaintiff’s motion to compel against Black Ops, while warning that Black Ops could be bound by its discovery responses and face consequences if it later attempted to rely on contrary information.

Thought Leadership

Superior Court Affirms Defense Verdict and Dismissal of Punitive Damages Claims

In Major v. Five Star Equipment Inc., No. 735 MDA 2025 (Pa. Super. Ct. June 30, 2026), the plaintiff was struck by the side mirror of a truck owned by Five Star Equipment and driven by its employee while crossing a roadway on a dark, foggy morning. Major asserted claims for vicarious liability, negligent hiring, supervision, retention, and entrustment, and sought punitive damages. The trial court granted partial summary judgment dismissing the punitive damages claims, bifurcated the case into liability and damages phases, and, following trial, a jury found Major 75% comparatively negligent and Five Star 25% negligent, resulting in a defense verdict. The Superior Court affirmed. The Court held that Major waived her challenge to the verdict slip by failing to request a special interrogatory regarding agency and by omitting such a question from her proposed verdict sheet. The Court further concluded that separate findings on the various liability theories were unnecessary given the straightforward issues and comprehensive jury instructions. The Court also upheld the dismissal of punitive damages claims, finding no evidence that the driver’s conduct rose beyond negligence to reckless indifference, including no evidence of fatigue or other aggravating circumstances. Finally, the Court found no abuse of discretion in bifurcating the trial, holding that the procedure promoted judicial economy and did not prejudice Major.

Complete Victory Obtained in a Workers’ Compensation Matter

Result

Complete Victory Obtained in a Workers’ Compensation Matter

Defense Victory Obtained in Workers’ Compensation Case

Result

Defense Victory Obtained in Workers’ Compensation Case