Thursday, May 14, 2009

Recent Cases of Note From Around the Commonwealth

According to the May 11, 2009 Pennsylvania Law Weekly, the following cases were the most frequently requested from the Law Weekly's Pennsylvania Instant Case Service (PICS) last week. See 32 PLW 521 (May 11, 2009). Copies of the opinions can be secured from the Law Weekly by calling 1-800-276-PICS and providing the PICS numbers indicated.

Minto v. J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc., PICS Case No. 09-0650(Pa. Super. April 17, 2009)
Klein, J.; Gantman, J. concurring (10 pages).

Superior Court held that the rule pertaining to the exclusivity of a workers' compensation recovery for an employee's injuries, did not bar an employee’s claims that his employer's destruction of evidence impeded his products liability claims against the manufacturer of a truck he was driving.

Schaub v. Trainer’s Inn, PICS Case No. 09-0598 (C.P. Carbon Feb. 17, 2009)
Nanovic, J. (19 pages).

An excellent analysis of the proximate causation/foreseeability issue in negligence cases. A bar’s serving of liquor to a visibly intoxicated underage patron was found not to be the proximate cause of that patron’s excessive violence in a fight outside the bar in which the patron beat another to death with a baseball bat.

Wilmington Steel Processing Co. v. Citisteel USA, Inc., PICS Case No. 09-0456 (C.P. Philadelphia, Commerce Program (Jan. 27, 2009)
Abramson, J. (15 pages).

Analysis of claim for tortious interference with existing and prospective contracts.

Berrier v. Simplicity Manufacturing, Inc., PICS Case No. 09-0692 (3d Cir. April 21, 2009)
McKee, J. (73 pages).

The Third Circuit predicted that, under certain circumstances, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court would adopt Restatement (Third) of Torts, §§ 1 and 2 and thereby allow bystanders to pursue a cause of action in strict liability.

Medallis v. Northeast Land Development, LLC, PICS Case No. 09-0494 (C.P. Lackawanna Dec. 4, 2008)
Minora, J. (14 pages).

Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas Judge Carmen Minora held that a developer can be found liable for storm water runoff even where his water runoff system met minimal regulatory requirements.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.