Trial Court Requests Affirmance of its Entry of Summary Judgment in a Nursing Home Slip and Fall Case

In the case of Ford v. Cheltenham Nursing and Rehab. Center, No. 2880 EDA 2023 (C.P. Phila. Co. Dec. 14, 2023 Lane, J.), the trial court asserted in its Rule 1925 Opinion to the Superior Court that its granting of a summary judgment motion in a slip and fall case involving a nursing home should be affirmed.

The court noted that the record before it showed that the Defendant had no prior notice of the alleged roof leak that allegedly caused water to puddle next to the Plaintiff’s bed at the facility.

The record before the court showed that the roof was inspected monthly. Also, the first indication in the Defendant’s records of any leak was the entry made just after the Plaintiff was discovered on the floor beside her bed.

Given that the Plaintiff had failed to prove actual or constructive notice of any defect, the court stated the Plaintiff had failed to demonstrate that the nursing facility had breached its duty of care.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.


Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Feb. 1, 2024).

SAVE THE DATE -- LACKAWANNA PRO BONO GOLF TOURNAMENT -- JUNE 10, 2024

 

DON'T FORGET - This Wednesday, April 24 is ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT'S DAY

Don't forget to say "Thank you" to your Administrative Assistant(s) on Administrative Professionals' Day this Wednesday, April 24, 2024!

Summary Judgment Granted in MVA Case Where Plaintiff Had Seat Belt Off and Defendant Driver Stopped Short

In the case of Lucykanish v. Flurer, No. 2545-CV-2022 (C.P. Monroe Co. Feb. 1, 2024 Williamson, J.), Judge David J. Williamson granted summary judgment to a Defendant driver in a motor vehicle accident case in which the Plaintiff was a passenger in that Defendant’s vehicle.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff was a rear seat passenger in the Defendant’s truck when another passenger dropped her cell phone in the rear footwell. The Plaintiff removed her seat belt to crawl around in the footwell to look for the phone.

At the same time, another vehicle improperly passed the Defendant’s truck on the right and then cut back into the Defendant’s lane.  In order to avoid a collision, the Defendant forcefully applied the truck’s brakes, which allegedly resulted in the Plaintiff striking her head on the truck’s center console.

After discovery, the Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment arguing that the Plaintiff could not demonstrate that he acted negligently in operating his vehicle and that there was no proximate causation established by the Plaintiff with respect to the Defendant’s actions and the Plaintiff’s alleged injuries.

Judge Williamson granted the Motion for Summary Judgment and held that the Plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the Defendant acted negligently or that any alleged negligence on the part of the Defendant was a proximate cause of the Plaintiff’s injuries.

The court noted that the evidence developed during discovery confirmed that the Defendant braked his truck forcefully in order to avoid a collision with another vehicle that had improperly tried to pass the Defendant on the right and then attempted to cut back into the Defendant’s lane of travel. The court noted that Defendant driver’s actions were meant to protect the entire vehicle from a potentially serious motor vehicle accident. The court found that the Plaintiff’s alleged injury, that occurred while the Plaintiff was crawling around the floor in the back seat area, unrestrained, did not impute negligence to the Defendant when the urgent need unexpectedly arose to hit the brakes in a forceful fashion.

The Plaintiff otherwise attempted to argue that the Defendant was negligence per se by speeding in a construction zone. The court noted that this argument failed because, even if the Defendant had violated the Motor Vehicle Code as alleged by the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff had still failed to show that the Defendant’s alleged speeding was a proximate cause of the injury.

The crux of the Plaintiff’s claim was that the Defendant had braked too hard or too late. The court stated, however, that the force that one applies the brakes of a vehicle is not grounds for a finding of a negligence under circumstances of this case.

Rather, Judge Wiliamson noted that, here, the Plaintiff would have not been injured if she had simply stayed in her seat with her seat belt on. The court noted that the Plaintiff failed to explain why she had to crawl around the footwell of a moving vehicle, let alone one that she would later claim was driving allegedly dangerously fast.

Overall, the court emphasized that the Defendant had acted appropriately under the circumstances in order to avoid an accident. Accordingly, the court agreed with the Defendant that the Plaintiff had failed to prove negligence or that any alleged negligence on the part of the Defendant was the alleged proximate cause of the Plaintiff’s injuries.

As noted, summary judgment was granted and the case was dismissed.

Anyone wishing to review this decision may click this LINK.

Source: “The Legal Intelligencer Common Pleas Case Alert,” at Law.com (April 4, 2024).

Judge Nealon Reviews Pennsylvania Law on Class Actions

In the case of Chase v. Kriger Construction, Inc., No. 2021-CV-5174 (C.P. Lacka. Co. Feb. 9, 2024 Nealon, J.)., Judge Terrence R. Nealon of the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas reviewed the current status of Pennsylvania law relative to certain aspects of class action.

Among the issues reviewed by the court were a request for a certification of a class action in accordance with the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, an approval of a class action settlement, and a ruling on the attorney’s fees allowed.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.

Continuing Violations Doctrine Does Not Save Civil Rights Claim From Statute of Limitations Defense Under Facts Presented

In the case of Sharr v. City of Scranton, No. 3:23-CV-00826-JFS (M.D. Pa. March 13, 2024 Saporito, C.M.J.), Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph F. Saporito, Jr. granted a Motion to Dismiss in a civil rights action brought by three (3) retirees against their former employer, The City of Scranton, relative to issues surrounding their monthly pension benefit payments that were reduced by The City.

The Plaintiffs had presented a claim that The City had violated their Fourteenth Amendment Due Process and Equal Protection Rights and had presented a 42 U.S.C. §1983 civil rights action.

The Defendant, City of Scranton, moved to dismiss the action for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under an argument that the Plaintiffs’ claims were barred by the applicable statute of limitations.

The Plaintiffs attempted to argue that the time within which they could file a lawsuit was extended by the continuing violations doctrine. 

The Plaintiff contended that each reduced monthly pension benefit payment paid by The City constituted another in a series of allegedly continuing unlawful acts, all of which, when taking together, comprised an ongoing continuing practice of allegedly violating the Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights.

Chief Mag. Judge 
Joseph F. Saporito, Jr.
M.D. Pa.

The court reviewed the law of the continuing violation doctrine and found that the Plaintiffs’ arguments did not meet the requirements of that doctrine. 

 The court found that the Plaintiffs’ claims were instead barred by the statute of limitations because the Plaintiffs were aware of their alleged injury at the time the alleged injury occurred well beyond the two (2) state of limitations applicable to civil rights actions.

As such, the court granted the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. Moreover, the court dismissed the action without leave to amend as the court found that it was clear from the facts alleged that any attempt to file an Amended Complaint would be futile as a matter of law.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.

Carrier Permitted to Deny Coverage Due to Non-Permissive Use

In the case of State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Hamilton, No. AD 2020-10 (C.P. Crawf. Co. Feb. 12, 2024 Stevens, J.), the court ruled that State Farm was not required, based upon the facts presented, to provide coverage to a Defendant under the relevant insurance policy for an incident that occurred given that the party at issue was not authorized to be driving the insured’s vehicle on the date of the incident and, therefore, did not qualify as an insured under the liability coverage at issue. 

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.

I send thanks to Attorney Joseph Hudock of the Summers McDonnell law firm in Pittsburgh for bringing this case to my attention.