Wendy R.S. O’Connor, an attorney with 30+ years of experience in the defense litigation arena, has practiced in a variety of areas during the course of career, beginning with environmental insurance coverage and pharmaceutical products liability defense. After taking off time to raise her four daughters, one of whom is intellectually disabled, Wendy returned to the practice of law in the area of business litigation for five years before finding her “forever home” at Marshall Dennehey, where she focuses her practice in general casualty defense, retail premises liability and veterinary liability defense.
Representing local, regional, and national clients in trial and at the appellate level, Wendy has honed her written and oral advocacy over a lifetime of practice in the state and federal courts of Eastern Pennsylvania. Wendy is a prolific writer and presenter on litigation trends and has drafted scholarly articles on topics as diverse as the Peer Review Act and motorist cell phone usage as a basis for punitive damages claims. Wendy frequently writes about the practice of law from an interpersonal perspective and has authored articles focusing on client relations, collegiality in the profession, and the importance of mentorship.
Wendy views her role as counsel as both providing a sound, compelling defense as well as shepherding her clients through what can be a stressful and frightening experience. As a former parenting educator, Wendy attended an intensive, fifty-hour course for facilitators that concentrated on communication and has found this training to be an invaluable asset in her legal practice. From a philosophical standpoint, Wendy attributes her success to exhaustive preparation, humility, a hard-won thick skin, and her signature double string of pearls.
A voracious reader, Wendy also enjoys writing about non-legal issues and has authored over one hundred essays on current events, society, and culture. In 2002, Wendy wrote a story for her oldest daughter featuring a family not unlike her own; in the years since, she has penned twenty more such tales which, in addition to her annual scrapbooks, have become family heirlooms. Wendy loves to garden, her Newfoundland dog, Hattie; and her husband of 35 years, Michael, a family medicine physician.
Results
Summary Judgment Secured in Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Case
We won summary judgment in a motor vehicle case before the Court of Common Pleas of Northampton County, Pennsylvania. The plaintiff was in the course and scope of her employment at the time of the vehicle collision. She filed a workers’ compensation claim, and the workers’ compensation judge ultimately determined that her alleged injuries were not related to the motor vehicle accident. The plaintiff appealed that decision to the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board, which affirmed. In her civil action against the driver and owners of the other vehicle, we asserted that the decision of the workers’ compensation judge acted as collateral estoppel with regard to all claims, thus barring recovery by the plaintiff against our client. The plaintiff argued that the right to a jury trial, as guaranteed under the Pennsylvania Constitution, precluded application of collateral estoppel. The trial court disagreed, finding ample case law to support the application of collateral estoppel in such circumstances, and granted our motion for summary judgment.
Defense Knocks-Out Plaintiff
We obtained summary judgment on behalf of a boxing gym. The plaintiff, a seasoned boxing coach, claimed to have been injured when he fell out of a boxing ring during a sparring match at the defendant’s gym. The plaintiff asserted that while standing on the apron with his back to the ring, he was struck by one of the fighters and propelled out and onto the floor. He alleged the defendant was negligent because the boxing ring was “too high” and the flooring surface “too hard.” In granting the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, the court found first that the defendant owed no duty to the plaintiff because Pennsylvania law imposes no duty on sports facilities to protect spectators from risks that are common, frequent, and expected, and that the circumstances surrounding the incident eliminate any duty on the part of the defendant. The court also held that there was no evidence to support the plaintiff’s contentions that the boxing ring was too high or that the lack of padding on the surrounding floor was a deviation from an established custom. In fact, the evidence established that the boxing ring complied with national boxing regulations. Accordingly, summary judgment was granted, and the plaintiff did not appeal the decision.
