TORT TALK

Friday, May 29, 2015

Quoted in Pennsylvania Law Weekly Article on Reservation of Rights Issue

Here is a LINK to a Pennsylvania Law Weekly article by Lizzy McLellan entitled "Defendant Must Receive Reservation of Rights Notice" summarizing the recent Pennsylvania Superior Court decision in the case of Erie Ins. v. Lobenthal.

If you cannot access the article, please let me know at dancummins@Comcast.com and I will email you a copy.

Here is a LINK to the Tort Talk post on the case (which also contains a Link to the Opinion online).


Posted by Daniel E. Cummins at 10:00 AM No comments:
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Labels: Cummins, Reservation of Rights Letter

ARTICLE: Limitations on Cross-Examination of Lay and Expert Witnesses

Civil Litigation  

Limitations on Cross-Examination of Lay and Expert Witnesses


By Daniel E. Cummins, Pennsylvania Law Weekly
May 19, 2015
  
Editor's note: The author served as defense counsel in Detrick v. Burrus.

It is well settled that "the purpose of ... civil trials is to discover the truth" of the claims and defenses presented by the parties, as the court held in Bailey v. Tucker, 621 A.2d 108, 113 (Pa. 1993). It is equally well settled that, in the search for the truth at trial, it is for the jury to determine the credibility of the witnesses, including expert witnesses, along with the weight to be given to the testimony of any witness presented, as in Ludmer v. Nernberg, 640 A.2d 939, 942 (Pa. Super. 1994).

The most important tool provided to a litigant to test the credibility of parties, witnesses and expert witnesses at trial, and thereby challenge the truth of the adversary's claims, is the right to conduct a thorough and cutting cross-examination.

Given the adversarial nature of trials, issues often arise pertaining to the extent to which a witness can be cross-examined. Recent cases reviewed below confirm that there are indeed some limits to efforts to attack the credibility of both lay and expert witnesses at trial.

Scope of Cross-Examination Not Unlimited

Pennsylvania Rule of Evidence 607(b) provides the general rule that "the credibility of a witness may be impeached by any evidence relevant to that issue, except as otherwise provided by statute or these rules."

Two recent court decisions illustrate the extent to which a court may limit the scope of a cross-examination of a lay witness or party, as well as the cross of an expert witness, at trial.

Limitations on Cross

In his recent detailed order issued in the case of Detrick v. Burrus, No. 2011 CV 1333 (C.P. Lacka. Co. Feb. 23), Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas Judge Terrence R. Nealon addressed a motion in limine filed by the plaintiff, Lori Detrick, in an automobile accident suit seeking to preclude evidence of a post-accident drug screen ordered by Detrick's treating doctor which contained a positive result for marijuana use.

Given that Detrick had denied any marijuana use under oath at her deposition, the defense planned to cross-examine her with respect to a urine drug test that was positive for marijuana, to attack her credibility as part of the overall search for the truth of the claims and defenses asserted by the parties at trial.

Citing Pennsylvania Rules of Evidence 401 and 403, pertaining to relevancy, Detrick contended that any evidence of the drug test was inadmissible because it was irrelevant and unduly prejudicial.

In addition to being relevant to attack the credibility of Detrick, who denied marijuana use under oath at her deposition, the defendant, Deidre Burrus, separately asserted that the evidence of the urine drug screen tests ordered by Detrick's post-accident doctor was also relevant to show that her own post-accident treating providers had serious concerns as to her use of prescription narcotic medications, such that the doctor felt it necessary to order a drug screen before prescribing medications to her.

In his opinion, Nealon noted that questions concerning the admissibility of evidence lie within the sound discretion of the trial court. In granting Detrick's motion in limine to preclude this evidence, the court relied upon the law that a witness may not be impeached or contradicted on a "collateral" matter.

Nealon noted that it is a well-settled principle of Pennsylvania law that "the purpose of trial is not to determine the ratings of witnesses for general veracity." The court reasoned that the Pennsylvania appellate courts have repeatedly held that "no witness can be contradicted on everything he testifies to in order to 'test his credibility.'" The court in Detrick also more specifically cited to a criminal court case holding that "general questioning concerning the use of drugs does not bear on the witnesses' 'character for truth.'"

The court also found that, even if such evidence was somehow relevant, this evidence was inadmissible under Rule 403, since its probative value was outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to Detrick.

The case, which was not appealed, therefore supports the notion that the permissible scope of a cross-examination of a party or lay witness is not unlimited. As noted below, the same rule prohibiting the cross-examination of a witness on collateral matters was recently applied in the context of expert witnesses.

Cross of an Expert Witness Also Has Limitations

By way of background, a few years back, a hot trend in Pennsylvania civil litigation matters involved the extent to which parties could discover information as to the extent of litigation-related activity by, and compensation for, opposing expert witnesses. Such discovery was gathered to be utilized at trial to expose experts as biased witnesses, or "hired guns," for the opposing side.

Over the years, since the handing down of appellate court decisions in Cooper v. Schoffstall, 905 A.2d 482 (Pa. 2006), and Feldman v. Ide, 915 A.2d 1208 (Pa. Super. 2007), allowing such discovery in limited circumstances, litigating attorneys gathered a treasure trove of such bias information pertaining to experts. Attorneys on both the defense and the plaintiffs side of the bar have amassed and shared such information on various experts, to the point that the information has become quite extensive with respect to certain experts.

Now that such voluminous discovery of litigation-related activity and compensation has been gathered on certain experts, the question has become to what extent all that information can be fairly utilized to cross-examine an expert at trial.

In its recent decision in Flenke v. Huntington, 2015 Pa. Super. 50, 467 MDA 2014 (March 17, 2015), the Superior Court ruled on the extent to which an expert may be cross-examined at trial with such large quantities of bias information discovered on that expert.

The Flenke case arose out of a motor vehicle accident. The question presented centered around the plaintiff's cross-examination of the defense's independent medical expert.
The Superior Court ruled that, while expert witnesses may generally be impeached for bias, including frequent work for the same side in litigation, there are limits to such cross-examination imposed by the law.

Under the well-established rule of law that holds that a witness cannot be cross-examined on collateral matters, the court in Flenke noted that even bias evidence can become too intrusive and so collateral, such that it should be limited, or even barred, at trial.

In Flenke, the plaintiff was permitted to cross-examine the defense expert as to the compensation earned by the expert in the case at hand, as well as other cases, within a reasonable limitation.

Yet, the Superior Court found that the plaintiff's effort to conduct a detailed review of the defense expert's 50 most recent reports involving other persons would have introduced collateral issues into the case. As such, this evidence was found to have been properly excluded by the trial court.

The court in Flenke also ruled that cross-examination pertaining to the expert's work for the defendant's insurance company was properly excluded, as it would have introduced the impermissible topic of insurance into the case.

Based upon the above cases, the extent to which the veracity of lay and expert witnesses can be tested at trial has some limitations. It appears that, under Pennsylvania law, while a witness can be exposed as a liar, liar, one cannot go so far as to symbolically light that witness' pants on fire.

Daniel E. Cummins is a partner and civil litigator with the Scranton law firm of Foley Comerford & Cummins. His civil litigation blog, Tort Talk, can be viewed at www.TortTalk.com.
Posted by Daniel E. Cummins at 9:15 AM No comments:
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Labels: Cross-Examination of Experts, Judge Nealon, Lay Witness Testimony, Scope of Examination of Witness at Trial

Thursday, May 28, 2015

Judge Mariani of Middle District of PA Explores Parameters of Discovery of Claims Files in Auto Bad Faith Claim

Judge Robert D. Mariani of the Federal Middle District Court of Pennsylvania ruled in Lane v. State Farm, No. 3-14-CV-01045 (M.D. Pa. May 18, 2015 Mariani, J.), that the mental impressions of the carrier’s claims professionals recorded after the Plaintiff’s Complaint was filed, as well as notes of the carrier's auto evaluation which referenced the carrier's defense attorneys' mental impressions, were considered privileged information and were, therefore, not discoverable.  Plaintiff's motion to compel was denied.

In this matter, the carrier produced redacted documents from the claims file along with a privilege log.  The Plaintiff filed a motion seeking an Order requiring that certain redacted portions of State Farm's privilege log to be revealed.  The Plaintiff claimed, in part, that could not confirm whether the portions redacted by the carrier did constitute privileged information.

Judge Robert D. Mariani
M.D. Pa.
The court ruled that the redacted portions did not have to be produced because the privileged nature of the documents were adequately described in the privilege log by defense counsel as an officer of the court.  For example, the redacted pages were marked as billing invoices for legal services or letters between the carrier and its defense counsel.

In ruling that the redacted portions need not be disclosed, the court noted that a hypothetical suggestion that representations made by a duly licensed attorney and officer of this court could be found to be utter fabrications is insufficient to carry plaintiff's burden in overcoming the privilege,.

The court also rejected the Plaintiff’s request for an in camera review of the redacted portions by the court to confirm the propriety of the redactions by defense counsel.

Judge Mariani otherwise provided instruction in his decision on the extent to which the post-Complaint mental impressions of a claims representative may be discoverable in a bad faith claim.  Concisely, Judge Mariani held that the mere existence of a bad faith claim in a Complaint “does not make otherwise privileged information per se discoverable.” 

Rather, a party seeking such discovery must meet its burden of persuading the court that such documents are not protected from discovery under the particular facts of the case.

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

Posted by Daniel E. Cummins at 10:25 AM No comments:
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Labels: Automobile Insurance, Bad Faith Discovery, Judge Mariani, Uninsured Motorists Claims

Judge Mark of Monroe County Grants Summary Judgment in Slip and Fall Case

In a recent Monroe County decision in the case of Smith v. Chelsea Pocono Fin. LLC, PICS Case No. 15-0602 (C.P. Monroe Dec. 29, 2015 Mark, J.), Judge Jonathan Mark of the Monroe County Court of Common Pleas granted summary judgment in favor of a landowner Defendant on the basis that the Plaintiff had failed to establish any evidence of actual or constructive notice of that Defendant of any defective condition on the stairway where the Plaintiff allegedly fell and was injured.

According to a summary of the Opinion, the Plaintiff was injured while at The Crossings Premium Outlets in the Poconos. The Plaintiff was walking down a stairwell and slipped and fell, allegedly sustaining injuries.

While the Plaintiff did not know what caused her to fall, her eyewitness husband testified that the Plaintiff slipped on a french fry or a hamburger bun fragment on the steps.

Although the court found that the Plaintiff had presented evidence to establish a jury question as to the existence of a defective or dangerous condition of the stairwell, the court granted summary judgment after finding that the Plaintiff had not established that the Defendant had any actual or constructive notice of the condition that caused the fall.

More specifically, the court found nothing in the record to suggest that the condition on the steps was traceable to the Defendants or their agents, or that the Defendant otherwise had any actual or constructive notice of the condition.

The Plaintiff attempted to argue that the Defendant’s had actual notice because this type of defect occurred frequently on the premises.

This argument was rejected under the Restatement (Second) of Torts §344 as that Section, and cases related thereto, inferring actual notice under a recurring situation scenario. Judge Mark noted that those decisions came to such a finding on the basis of recurring events or conditions that had caused harm to invitees in the past in an obvious fashion.

In this Smith case, Judge Mark found that there was only an argument that the specific condition which allegedly caused the injury at issue had allegedly occurred generally in the past. Here, while there was evidence presented to show that food and other debris had been generally found on the property in the past, there was no allegation or proof that patrons slipping on food had become an epidemic on the premises.

The court also rejected the Plaintiff’s claim that the absence of any cleaning or maintenance records was sufficient to deny and otherwise properly supported Motion for Summary Judgment. The court rejected this argument as an effort by the Plaintiff to improperly reverse the burden of proof and place it upon the Defendant.

Lastly, the court also found that the Plaintiff had failed to offer any evidence as to how long the debris had been located on the steps, or that anyone had observed it prior to the Plaintiff’s incident so as to support an argument of constructive notice. The court also rejected the Plaintiff’s constructive notice argument on the basis that the debris/food on the step was crushed.

The court otherwise found that the Defendant had exercised reasonable precautionary steps to prevent accidents, including the placement of a trash can within ten (10) feet of the stairway and repeated checking of the area, specifically around restaurants. 


Copies of this case are available by calling the Pennsylvania Instant Case Service of the Pennsylvania Law Weekly at 800-276-PICS and giving the above PICS Case Number and paying a small fee.
Posted by Daniel E. Cummins at 9:00 AM No comments:
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Labels: Judge Mark, Premises Liability, Slip and Fall

Tuesday, May 26, 2015

Preliminary Objections Against Allegations of Recklessness in Negligence Auto Accident Suit Sustained

In the recent decision in the case of Roma v. Finney, PICS Case No. 15-0641 (C.P. Northampton Co. Feb. 23, 2015 Beltrami, J.), the trial court sustained a Defendant’s Preliminary Objections in an automobile accident matter and ordered that the words “reckless,” “recklessness,” and “recklessly” be stricken from the Complaint. 

The court noted that this matter involved a negligence cause of action arising out of a rear-end motor vehicle accident.  In her Complaint, the Plaintiff alleged negligence and/or recklessness on the part of the Defendant caused the accident and injuries.   Notably, the Plaintiff did not request punitive damages in the Complaint.  

The Defendant filed Preliminary Objections in the nature of a Motion to Strike impertinent matter pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1028(a)(2).  

As there were no facts plead in the Complaint to support the objected to language, and given that no claim for punitive damages was pled, the court granted the Preliminary Objections as allegations of recklessness were deemed to be immaterial to proving a negligence cause of action.  

Anyone desiring a copy of this Opinion may click this LINK.

Source:  "Case Digests," Pennsylvania Law Weekly (April 28, 2015).

Posted by Daniel E. Cummins at 8:00 AM No comments:
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Labels: Allegations of Recklessness, Pleadings, Punitive Damages, Recklessness

Friday, May 22, 2015

GOLF FOR A GOOD CAUSE -- JUNE 5 -- LACKAWANNA PRO BONO GOLF TOURNAMENT


Posted by Daniel E. Cummins at 9:00 AM No comments:
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest

Wednesday, May 20, 2015

IME Expert May Rely Upon Another IME Report


In the case of Feld v. Primus Technologies Corp., No. 4:12-CV-01492, 2015 U.S. Dist. Lexis 55270 (M.D. Pa. April 28, 2015 Brann, J.), Judge Matthew W. Brann of the Middle District Federal Court of Pennsylvania relied upon Fed.R.E. 703 in ruling that Defendants in tort litigation may utilize independent medical examinations of the plaintiff prepared in separate worker’s compensation proceedings. 

The court denied a Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine in this regard reasoning that, even if such IME reports may be arguably biased, IME reports are the kind of records that a medical expert would legitimately rely upon, i.e, the records of other doctors.   

Judge Matthew W. Brann
Judge Brann did emphasize, however, that while an expert may rely on IME reports, the expert’s opinion testimony must still satisfy the usual evidentiary requirements, such as the hearsay rule, before the opinion may be admitted into evidence.

A copy of this decision by Judge Brann can be viewed online HERE.

I send thanks to Attorney James Beck of the Philadelphia office of the Reed Smith law firm for bringing this case to my attention.  Please be sure to check out Attorney Beck’s excellent blog, The Drug and Device Law Blog HERE.
Posted by Daniel E. Cummins at 9:02 AM No comments:
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Labels: Fair Scope of Expert Report, IME, Judge Brann

Tuesday, May 19, 2015

Transcript of Jury Instructions Secured From Dauphin Co. Post-Koken Trial That Ended in Mistrial

In yesterday's Tort Talk, the Post-Koken case of Oaks v. Erie Ins. Exch. and Austin was reviewed in which the Dauphin County court agreed to bifurcate a retrial of a Post-Koken case against both a tortfeasor Defendant driver and the UIM carrier after the jury, through questions presented to the court during their deliberations, indicated that they were looking at the issue of the tortfeasor's liability insurance coverage in violation of Pennsylvania law.  [Click HERE to review that Tort Talk post again and to access a link to the Order without Opinion].

Tort Talkers can click HERE to review the Jury Instructions utilized by the trial court in Oaks at the first trial which, as noted, ended in a mistrial when the jury began to focus on the issue of the tortfeasor's liability coverage.

A review of these jury instructions show just how difficult it can be to craft appropriate jury instructions in a Post-Koken trial involving both the tortfeasor Defendant driver and the UIM carrier Defendant.
Posted by Daniel E. Cummins at 8:00 AM No comments:
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Labels: Jury Instructions, Post-Koken, UIM, UM, Underinsured Motorists Claims, Uninsured Motorists Claims

Sunday, May 17, 2015

Dauphin County Court Reconsiders and Grants Post-Koken Severance Request after a Mistrial at First Consolidated Trial

In a recent Order without Opinion in the Post-Koken case of Oaks v. Erie Insurance Exchange and Austin, No. 2012 - CV - 3741 - CV (C.P. Dauphin Co. May 8, 2015 Bratton, J.) handed down after a mistrial in a matter, Judge Bruce F. Bratton of the Dauphin County Court of Common Pleas granted the tortfeasor Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration of the court's prior denial of the tortfeasor's Motion to Sever the negligence claims asserted against him by the Plaintiff from the Plaintiff's UIM claims against the carrier.

According to information received on this case, the case proceeded through the pleadings and discovery phases in a consolidated fashion.  A motion to sever the cases was originally filed shortly before the first trial and was denied.  During jury deliberations after the first trial, the jury submitted a number of written questions that suggest that the jury was aware that the tortfeasor had insurance coverage and that the jury was focusing on matters that were asserted to be prejudicial to the Defendants.  As such, Judge Bratton granted a motion for a mistrial.  The Motion for Reconsideration which is the subject of this Oaks decision was filed after the mistrial.

 This Motion for Reconsideration was granted and in that Order the court held that the negligence claims asserted by the Plaintiff against the Defendant would be severed, for the purposes of the retrial of this matter, from the UIM claims against the carrier Defendant.

In other words, the retrial of this matter was held to proceed in a bifurcated fashion with one trial on the negligence claim against the tortfeasor, and a separate trial on the UIM claim against the carrier.

Unfortunately no rationale or reasoning behind this decision in contained in the court's Order.

Anyone wishing to review this decision, may click HERE.

I send thanks to Attorney John A. Statler of the Lemoyne, PA law office of Johnson, Duffie, Stewart & Weidner for providing me with a copy of this decision.


Commentary:

A review of the Post-Koken Scorecard on www.TortTalk.com confirms that there is a split of authority within the trial court decisions out of Dauphin County on the issue of consolidation versus severance of Post-Koken cases from the pleadings and discovery phases of a case.

This more recent Oaks v. Erie Ins. Exchange case summarized above confirms that at least one Dauphin County Judge has ruled that a Post-Koken case should be bifurcated into two separate trials, i.e. one trial on the negligence claims against the tortfeasor Defendant, and a separate trial on the UIM claim against the carrier.

The Post-Koken Scorecard on www.TortTalk.com confirms that, to date, there is a split of authority amongst the trial courts on whether or not to bifurcate a Post-Koken case for trial. 

The only appellate case, to date, to comment on this bifurcation of trial issue is the Stepanovich v. McGraw and State Farm case, the Tort Talk blog post on which can be viewed HERE.  My Pennsylvania Law Weekly article reviewing that Stepanovich case can be viewed at this LINK.

Posted by Daniel E. Cummins at 4:00 PM No comments:
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Labels: Jury Instructions, Post-Koken, UIM, UM, Underinsured Motorists Claims, Uninsured Motorists Claims

Friday, May 15, 2015

ARTICLE: TO CALL OR NOT TO CALL: Dilemma Created by Unfavorable Expert Report

At times, a defense expert report unfavorable to the defense position comes in the mail that makes a case more troublesome, or in some cases, easier, to settle.  Where such a case instead proceeds to trial, a Defendant may choose not to call the IME doctor as a trial witness and issues arise over the extent to which a Plaintiff may attempt to utilize the defense expert's report to further the Plaintiff's case-in-chief.

An article of mine entitled "To Call or Not to Call: Dilemma Created by Unfavorable Expert Report" addressing these issues was recently published in the Spring 2015 edition of the Civil Litigation Update (Vol. 19, No. 2 Spring 2015) issued by the Civil Litigation Section of the Pennsylvania Bar Association.

Anyone wishing to review this article may click this LINK..



Posted by Daniel E. Cummins at 8:00 AM No comments:
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Labels: Cross-Examination of Experts, Experts, Independent Medical Examinations, Independent Psychiatric Examinations, Trial

Wednesday, May 13, 2015

PA Supreme Court Reaffirms No Direct Right of Action for Subrogation Held by Employer or Worker's Comp Carrier

In its recent decision in the case of Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Dotmar Paper Co., 19 WAP 2014 (Pa. April 27, 2015)(Maj. Op. by Baer, J.)(Saylor, C.J., Dissenting), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court addressed the right of an employer, and/or the employer's worker's compensation carrier, to pursue a subrogation claim directly against a third party tortfeasor when the injured employee has not filed a claim against the tortfeasor or assigned his or her right to do so to another.

According to the Opinion, the injured employee was in the scope and course of his employment with Schneider National slipped and fell in the parking lot of the tortfeasor Defendant Dotmar Paper Company.  The employee was allegedly injured and was paid worker's compensation benefits by his employer's worker's compensation carrier.
When the injured employee did not sue the landowner, or otherwise assign his right to sue to anyone, the worker's compensation carrier took it upon itself to sue the landowner, seeking to recover the worker's compensation benefits it paid out to the injured employee.  The landowner defendant filed a demurrer essentially arguing that the worker's compensation carrier had no standing to bring such a suit under the law.

Both the Elk County trial court and the Pennsylvania Superior Court ruled that Section 319 of the Worker's Compensation Act did not permit such a claim and the insurer appealed.  The Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court's decision.
The Pennsylvania Superior Court reaffirmed the rule that, under Section 319 of the Worker's Compensation Act, a right of action is granted to the injured party employee.  The Court held that the employer's/worker's comp insurer's right of subrogation pursuant to Section 319 must be asserted through a single action brought in the name of the injured employee or included in any claim brought by the injured employee against the tortfeasor.

In this matter, the injured employee never pursued a case and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that the employer and/or the worker's compensation carrier could not otherwise pursue any subrogation claim for worker's compensation benefits paid out to the injured employee related injuries caused by the tortfeasor.

The Majority Supreme Court Opinion can be viewed HERE.
Chief Justice Saylor's Dissent can be viewed HERE.

Madame Justice Todd's Dissent can be viewed at this LINK.

 

I send thanks to Attorney Scott Cooper of the Harrisburg, PA office of Schmidt Kramer for bringing this case to my attention.
Posted by Daniel E. Cummins at 8:00 AM No comments:
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Labels: Subrogation, Workers' Compensation

Monday, May 11, 2015

Sample Voir Dire and Jury Instructions in a Post-Koken Auto Law Case

Post-Koken auto law cases, with combined UM/UIM and third party claims, as well as auto lawsuits solely against UM/UIM carriers are finally starting to reach the trial stage on a regular basis.

As a result, more and more transcribed voir dire proceedings and jury instructions are being preserved.  Below are a few samples recently secured.

Sample Voir Dire in a Post-Koken Case

Susquehanna County

For a sample voir dire from a February, 2015 Post-Koken auto law trial in Susquehanna County against an uninsured third party tortfeasor (who did not appear for trial) and an uninsured (UM) carrier in the case of Strohl v. State Farm and Olmstead click HERE.

Interestingly, during this voir dire, some of the potential jurors in the jury pool talked favorably about their experience with insurance companies, most were non-committal (silent), and at least one ripped insurance companies in light of a prior bad experience.


Sample Jury Instructions in a Post-Koken Case

Susquehanna County

To view the Jury Instructions crafted by Senior Judge S. Gerald Corso in the above-referenced February of 2015 Susquehanna Post-Koken Trial involving an uninsured tortfeasor Defendant (who did not appear but remained on the caption) and a UM carrier Defendant, click HERE.


Monroe County

To view a transcribed copy of the Jury Instructions utilized by Judge Arthur Zulick in the Monroe County case of Comrie v. Atlantic States Ins. Co., click this LINK. 

Judge Zulick handed out a copy of these instructions to the litigating attorneys involved.

I send thanks to Attorney Rob Smith of the Moosic, PA office of Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin for providing a copy of these instructions.


Lackawanna County

For anticipated jury instructions crafted by Judge Terrence R. Nealon in a case that was later settled just prior to trial and which involved both a tortfeasor defendant and a UIM carrier defendant, see the court's April 15, 2015 Opinion in the case of Kujawski at this LINK.

For anticipated jury instructions drafted by Judge Terrence R. Nealon for a case in a matter involving UIM carrier defendant only (i.e., the plaintiff had previously secured a settlement with the tortfeasor Defendant), see the court's November 10, 2014 Opinion in the Moritz case at this LINK.

Singer v. State Farm, No. 15-CV-2859 (C.P. Lacka. Co. 2018 Gibbons, J.)(Here is a LINK to a copy of the printout of the UIM jury instruction Judge James A. Gibbons presented to the jury over objection on behalf of the defense.)

Posted by Daniel E. Cummins at 10:30 AM No comments:
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Labels: Judge Nealon, Judge Zulick, Post-Koken, UIM, UM, Underinsured Motorists Claims, Uninsured Motorists Claims

Violation of Dangerous Dog Law in Dog Bite Case Equals Negligence Per Se

In the case of Harrison v. Haueisen, PICS Case. No. 15-0607 (C.P. Lycoming Co. April 2, 2015 Gray, J.), Judge Richard Gray of the Lycoming County Court of Common Pleas denied a Defendant’s Preliminary Objections to a Plaintiff’s Complaint in a dog bite case.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiffs were allegedly injured when they were injured attacked by a dog while walking on the sidewalk of a public street. No provocation by the Plaintiffs was indicated.

In their Complaint, the Plaintiffs alleged that the dog had previously bitten a child, that the Defendant owner knew or should have known that the dog had dangerous propensities, and that neighbors had previously complained to the Defendant about their failure to restrain the dog and about the dog’s alleged vicious propensities. Moreover, it was alleged that, shortly before the incident, a complaint was made to the Williamsport Police about a separate dog biting incident.

The Defendant owner filed Preliminary Objections in the form of a demurrer based upon an alleged violation of the dangerous dog law. The second preliminary objection was a demurrer to the punitive damages claim.

The court rejected the Defendant’s arguments that a violation of the Dangerous Dog Law did not amount to negligence per se. To the contrary, the court ruled that the Pennsylvania Superior Court had previously held that an unexcused violation of a statute constitutes negligence per se.

As such, taking the Plaintiff’s factual allegations as true as required by the standard of review, the court concluded that a violation of the Dangerous Dog Law could form the basis for a liability finding. As such, this initial Preliminary Objection was denied.

However, the court emphasized that, liability in this respect was not absolute as the negligence per se doctrine did not impose strict liability. Rather, the Plaintiff still had to prove causation and the extent of damages.

With regards to the demurrer to the claims for punitive damages, the court found that the Plaintiff had pled sufficient facts to support that claim. The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendants had a subjective appreciation of the risk of harm to which the Plaintiffs were exposed and that the Defendants acted or failed to act in a manner that showed a conscious disregard of that risk. Accordingly, this claim was allowed to proceed.

Anyone wishing to review this Harrison decision may click this LINK.


 

Posted by Daniel E. Cummins at 8:42 AM No comments:
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Labels: Dog Bite, Judge Gray, Negligence Per Se

Friday, May 8, 2015

Check out the Search Box on Tort Talk

I have worked out the kinks in the "Search" Box located in the right hand column on the Tort Talk Blog at (www.TortTalk.com).

Please feel free to utilize that "Search" Box to try to track down issues you may recall previously reading in a Tort Talk blog post.

Another good tool on Tort Talk to go revisit previous issues is to go to Tort Talk and scroll all the way down the right hand column to the "Labels" and click on whatever Label matches your topic ("Limited Tort," "Future Medical Expenses," etc.).

Also, please don't hesitate to email me at dancummins@comcast.net for assistance in locating anything on Tort Talk--I'd be happy to help out.


Posted by Daniel E. Cummins at 10:00 AM No comments:
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Labels: Tort Talk

Foster Child Due Coverage as a 'Family Member' Under Auto Insurance Policy

In its recent decision in the case of  Rourke v. Penn. Nat. Mut. Cas. Ins. Co., No. 1028 MDA 2014 (Pa. Super. April 28, 2015 Mundy, Stabile, Fitzgerald, J.)(Op. by Mundy, J.)(Fitgzerald, J., concurring), the Pennsylvania Superior Court addressed the issue of whether a foster child was a "family member" of his foster parents' household under the terms of an automobile insurance policy.

According to the Opinion , the person at issue had been a foster child but, ten days before the subject accident, his status as a "dependent child" had been terminated because he was over the age of 18 and was not enrolled in college.
Under the policy, a 'Family member' was defined as “a person related to you by blood, marriage or adoption who is a resident of your household.  This includes a ward or foster child.”  

The terms 'ward' and 'foster child' were not defined in the policy.
Reviewing the record before it, the Superior Court ruled that the person at issue was indeed a 'ward' at the time of the crash.

The court also ruled that, in any event, the term 'ward' as used in an insurance contract with no further definition is an ambiguous term as it is a term susceptible to more than one interpretation. 
The court followed the well-settled rule that ambiguous terms in auto insurance policies are to be construed in favor of the insured.

The Superior Court in Rourke also found that there was a genuine issue of material fact to be decided by the jury on the question of whether or not the injured insured party had a reasonable expectation of coverage under the circumstances.

Accordingly, coverage was afforded to the foster child under the policy.

Anyone wishing to review this decision may click HERE.
I send thanks to Attorney Matthew S. Crosby of the Harrisburg, PA office of Handler, Henning & Rosenberg LLP (Attorney Rosenberg of that office represented the injured party insured), as well as to Attorney Scott Cooper of the Harrisburg, PA law firm of Schmidt Kramer for bringing this case to my attention.

Posted by Daniel E. Cummins at 9:00 AM No comments:
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Labels: Coverage Questions, Declaratory Judgment Actions, Family Member Under Auto Policy

Thursday, May 7, 2015

Summary Judgment Granted in Rocky Terrain Slip and Fall Matter

In his recent decision in the case of Giambalvo-Blaha v. CBH2O LP, PICS Case No. 15-0465 (C.P. Monroe Co. Jan. 16, 2015 Zulick, J.), the court ruled that a Defendant landowner, CBK Mountain Adventures was entitled to summary judgment in a slip and fall matter.  

According to the summary of the Opinion, the Plaintiff was injured as she slipped and fell on a rocky, hilly path that lead to an area of the premises where a zip line was offered.  

Judge Arthur L. Zulick
Monroe County
Judge Arthur L. Zulick noted that although the landowner had a duty of care to a business invitee that required the landowner to protect the invitee from foreseeable harm, a possessor of land was not liable to an invitee for physical harm caused by any condition on the land whose danger was known or obvious to the Plaintiff, unless the possessor of land should have anticipated the harm despite such knowledge or obviousness.  

In this matter, the court found that the danger was obvious when both the condition and the risk were apparent to and would be recognized by a reasonable visitor using normal perception, intelligence, and judgment.   The record in this matter established that the condition of the rocky and hilly path was obvious to a reasonably attentive guest.   The court also noted that pictures established that the Plaintiff could have avoided the areas of larger rocks if she had been uncertain of her footing.  

Since the court concluded that the Defendant landowner reasonably could have expected that its invitees would have recognized the dangers posed by the rocky surface and could have avoided stepping on loose or unstable stone, the landowner had no duty to protect the Plaintiff from the conditions that allegedly lead to her fall and injury.  Accordingly, summary judgment was entered.  

 I do not have a copy of this decision.  Anyone wishing to secure a copy of the same may contact the Pennsylvania Instant Case Service of the Pennsylvania Law Weekly at 1-800-276-7427 and pay a small fee.   
Posted by Daniel E. Cummins at 9:30 AM No comments:
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Labels: Assumption of Risk, Premises Liability, Slip and Fall, Trip and Fall

Summary Judgment Granted in Monroe County Slip and Fall Case (Wax Buildup on Supermarket Floor)

Summary Judgment was granted in a recent Monroe County decision by Judge Stephen M. Higgins in the premises liability case of Zangenberg v. Weis Markets, No. 10500 CV 2012 (C.P. Monroe Co. April 1, 2015 Higgins, J.).

The Plaintiff alleged personal injuries as a result of a slip and fall on the defendant's premises.  The Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment asserting that it had no actual or constructive notice of the alleged dangerous condition.

The Plaintiff asserted that she had met her burden of proof by pointing to issues with the application of wax to the floor of the store and/or with allegations of wax buildup rendering the floor slippery.

Judge Stephen Higgins
Monroe County
Judge Higgins disagreed, noting that that the Plaintiff had not produced evidence to show that an improper application of wax to the floor that created a dangerous condition so obvious as to amount to evidence from which an inference of negligence would arise. 

As an example of a different type of case where summary judgment should be denied, the court pointed to a situation of a wax buildup on a floor such that there was evidence of a skid mark by the heel of a shoe through the wax that raised sides up as if the shoe was sliding through mud.

Here, the court noted that the evidence only involved a black skid mark but there was no other concrete evidence to establish that that skid mark was caused by the Plaintiff's shoe at the time she fell.  After the Plaintiff's fall, neither the Plaintiff nor any store employee saw any evidence on the floor as to what caused the Plaintiff to fall.  The Plaintiff simply testified that it was slippery in the area where she fell.

However, the court saw no evidence that would have raised an inference that the store knew or should have known that the floor was slippery in the time leading up to the Plaintiff's incident.  As such, the defense motion for summary judgment was granted.

Anyone desiring a copy of this decision may click this LINK.

I send thanks to the prevailing defense attorney Meg Kelly, Esquire, of the Moosic, PA office of the Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin law firm.
Posted by Daniel E. Cummins at 9:00 AM No comments:
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Labels: Judge Higgins, Premises Liability, Slip and Fall

Wednesday, May 6, 2015

Latest Facebook Discovery Decision Uncovered

 


The most recent Facebook Discovery decision comes in the form of an Opinion by a Western District Federal Magistrate in the case of In re Milo's Kitchen Dog Treats Consolidated Cases, No. 12-1011 (W.D.Pa April 14, 2015 Kelly, P.J.).  The Federal Magistrate Judge denied a Defendant's motion to compel unfettered and complete access of the Plaintiff's profile page along with a disclosure of the Plaintiff's user name and password.

The case arose out of claims that the Defendant's dog treats had caused a fatal illness in the Plaintiff's dog.

The defense asserted that it had made a predicate showing allowing it access to the private pages of the Plaintiff's Facebook profile by establishing that the Plaintiff had commented online that another manufacturer had made the treats.

The Plaintiff did not contest that the defense had made the requisite predicate showing and responded by producing 648 pages from her Facebook profile, with redactions.

Noting that it believed that the Plaintiff had been liberal with her redactions, the court rejected the defense contention that it was entitled to complete access of the private pages of the Facebook profile once a predicate showing was made.

While the defense motion to compel was denied, the court did note that it would review one of the redactions made in an in camera session.


Anyone wishing to review this most recent Facebook Discovery decision may click this LINK.

I send thanks to Attorney Neil O'Donnell of the O'Donnell Law Offices in Kingston, PA for bringing this case to my attention.
Posted by Daniel E. Cummins at 9:00 AM No comments:
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Labels: Facebook Discovery, Social Networking Sites

Tuesday, May 5, 2015

SAVE THE DATE: JUNE 5 -- LACKAWANNA PRO BONO GOLF TOURNAMENT (Only 30 Days Away)


Posted by Daniel E. Cummins at 10:00 AM No comments:
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest

Monday, May 4, 2015

TORT TALK IS SIX YEARS OLD



Here is a LINK to my very first blog post back on May 4, 2009 in which I noted a hope to provide informative and, at times, entertaining content--I hope that I have been successful in that regard.

Thanks again -- very much -- for reading Tort Talk.  I appreciate it.


Daniel E. Cummins
Foley, Comerford & Cummins
Scranton, PA


Posted by Daniel E. Cummins at 9:00 AM No comments:
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest

Friday, May 1, 2015

PLEASE RESERVE YOUR SPOT FOR THE TORT TALK EXPO 2015



TORT TALK EXPO 2015

Thursday, September 24, 2015

Mohegan Sun Casino and Hotel

Wilkes-Barre, PA 

(3 Substantive, 1 Ethics Credit)
 

Door Prizes - Vendor Giveaways - Raffle Prizes 
 
 
 
AGENDA:
 
 
[Registration 11:30 am - 12 noon]

 

12:00 pm - 1:00 pm - "Lessons from Forrest Gump"

A TORT TALK AUTO LAW UPDATE

by Daniel E.  Cummins, Esq. FOLEY, COMERFORD & CUMMINS 

 

1:00 pm - 2:00 pm – CIVIL LITIGATION UPDATE

by Melissa A. Scartelli, Esq. SCARTELLI AND OLSZEWSKI 

 

BREAK 2:00 pm – 2:15 pm

  

  2:15 pm - 3:15 pm - MEDICAL HOUR

 Dr. Sheryl Oleski – Low Back Pain Overview

NORTHEASTERN REHABILITATION ASSOCIATES 

 

BREAK 3:15 pm – 3:30 pm

 

 3:30 pm - 4:30 pm - VIEW FROM THE BENCH

Ethical Considerations for Settlement Conferences
and Other Dealings with the Court

 

 MODERATOR: 

Judith Price, Esq.  Dougherty, Leventhal & Price

 

 JUDICIAL PANELISTS

  Pennsylvania Superior Judge Court Judge Christine Donohue

Luzerne County Judge Lesa Gelb

Lackawanna County Judge Margie Bisignani-Moyle

U.S. Federal Middle District Magistrate Judge Karoline Mehalchick

 

 

 4:30 pm - 6 pm - POST-SEMINAR COCKTAIL RECEPTION

 

 

To Register, visit www.TortTalk.com and click on registration link

or mail check made out to "Tort Talk" and form below to:

 

Daniel E. Cummins, Esq.

 Foley, Comerford & Cummins

507 Linden Street, Suite 700 
 
Scranton, PA 18503

 

Cost: $195 Attorneys; $25 Claims Representatives

 

NAME: ___________________________________________________

 

FIRM/COMPANY: _________________________________________

 
 
EMAIL: ___________________________________________________
 
 
Posted by Daniel E. Cummins at 10:00 AM No comments:
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Labels: Cummins, Tort Talk

Pennsylvania Superior Court Reaffirms Test for Proper Venue Over Corporate Defendant ("Non-Precedential" But Still Informative)

In a recent memorandum, "non-precedential" decision in the case of Gordon v. JFBB Ski Areas, Inc.,  (Pa.Super. Feb. 13, 2015 Lazarus, Wecht, and Strassburger, J.J.)(mem. op. by Wecht, J.), the Pennsylvania Superior Court addressed the test of proper venue for a corporate defendant based upon the analysis of where the Defendant corporation conducted business in the Commonwealth.

Judge David N. Wecht
Pennsylvania Superior Court
Applying Pa.R.C.P. 2179 and related case law, Judge Wecht's Opinion in Gordon, albeit marked "non-precedential," could serve as a good starting point for a review of the current status of the law in this regard.

The court ultimately ruled that incidental advertising activities by a ski resort, even if such activities resulted in a small percentage of sales in a certain jurisdiction did not constitute sufficient contacts to justify venue in a certain county.

In this matter, the court ultimately affirmed the Philadelphia County trial court's sustaining of a Defendant's Preliminary Objections asserting improper venue and transferring a personal injury matter from Philadelphia County to Carbon County where the Defendant ski resort was located and where the Plaintiff was injured.

Anyone wishing to review this decision may click this LINK.

Posted by Daniel E. Cummins at 8:00 AM No comments:
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Labels: Corporate Negligence, Corporations, Judge Wecht, Transfer of Venue, Venue
Newer Posts Older Posts Home
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

Subscribe to TortTalk via Email

Subscribe to TortTalk via Email

SEARCH THIS BLOG


Contact Info

Daniel E. Cummins, Esquire
CUMMINS LAW
610 Morgan Highway
Clarks Summit, PA 18411
570-319-5899

dancummins@CumminsLaw.net

www.CumminsLaw.net

PROFILE

My photo
Daniel E. Cummins, Esq.
View my complete profile

POST-KOKEN SCORECARD

  • UPDATED AS OF March 1, 2023

FACEBOOK DISCOVERY SCORECARD

  • UPDATED AS OF March 1, 2023

Avvo.com Profile

10.0Daniel Edmund Cummins

Super Lawyer

 
Daniel E. Cummins
 
View Daniel E. Cummins's profile on LinkedIn

Tort Talk Awards

LexisNexis Litigation Resource Center 2011 Top 50 Tort Blogs LexisNexis Insurance Law Community 2011 Top Blogs of the Year LexisNexis Insurance Law Community 2009 Top Blogs of the Year

TORT TALK AWARDS

Tort Talk Awards

POPULAR POSTS

  • Court Addresses Forum Selection Clause in a Post-Koken UIM Case As Well As the Validity of Allegations of Recklessness
  • Doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens Reviewed In Dispute Between Two Plaintiff's Law Firms Over a Substantial Fee
  • Application of Doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens Results in Transfer of Case from Philadelphia to Chester County
  • Have You Registered for the Lackawanna Pro Bono Golf Tournament (or just the CLE and Lunch)?
  • Pennsylvania Superior Court Reviews Scope of Statutory Employer Status for General Contractors

LINKS OF NOTE

  • Cummins Law Firm
  • Cummins Mediation Services
  • My Avvo.com Profile
  • My LinkedIn.com Profile
  • My Justia.com Profile
  • Lackawanna County Bar Association
  • Pennsylvania Bar Association
  • Philadelphia Association of Defense Counsel
  • The Dickinson School of Law
  • Villanova University

OTHER GREAT BLOGS

  • Drug and Device Law (By James Beck, Esq. and others)
  • Lawffice Space - Employment Law Blog (By Phillip K. Miles, Esq.)
  • PENNSYLVANIA AND NEW JERSEY INSURANCE BAD FAITH CASE LAW BLOG

Blog Archive

  • ►  2023 (74)
    • ►  March (23)
    • ►  February (20)
    • ►  January (31)
  • ►  2022 (310)
    • ►  December (24)
    • ►  November (33)
    • ►  October (23)
    • ►  September (24)
    • ►  August (25)
    • ►  July (18)
    • ►  June (23)
    • ►  May (24)
    • ►  April (36)
    • ►  March (26)
    • ►  February (28)
    • ►  January (26)
  • ►  2021 (319)
    • ►  December (46)
    • ►  November (21)
    • ►  October (32)
    • ►  September (25)
    • ►  August (29)
    • ►  July (19)
    • ►  June (17)
    • ►  May (24)
    • ►  April (20)
    • ►  March (32)
    • ►  February (23)
    • ►  January (31)
  • ►  2020 (445)
    • ►  December (34)
    • ►  November (40)
    • ►  October (41)
    • ►  September (40)
    • ►  August (25)
    • ►  July (35)
    • ►  June (37)
    • ►  May (30)
    • ►  April (40)
    • ►  March (40)
    • ►  February (41)
    • ►  January (42)
  • ►  2019 (304)
    • ►  December (20)
    • ►  November (24)
    • ►  October (22)
    • ►  September (17)
    • ►  August (22)
    • ►  July (28)
    • ►  June (32)
    • ►  May (23)
    • ►  April (26)
    • ►  March (27)
    • ►  February (23)
    • ►  January (40)
  • ►  2018 (260)
    • ►  December (18)
    • ►  November (30)
    • ►  October (36)
    • ►  September (20)
    • ►  August (21)
    • ►  July (16)
    • ►  June (23)
    • ►  May (22)
    • ►  April (17)
    • ►  March (18)
    • ►  February (25)
    • ►  January (14)
  • ►  2017 (196)
    • ►  December (15)
    • ►  November (15)
    • ►  October (19)
    • ►  September (15)
    • ►  August (13)
    • ►  July (12)
    • ►  June (23)
    • ►  May (21)
    • ►  April (16)
    • ►  March (16)
    • ►  February (14)
    • ►  January (17)
  • ►  2016 (197)
    • ►  December (12)
    • ►  November (12)
    • ►  October (12)
    • ►  September (18)
    • ►  August (13)
    • ►  July (15)
    • ►  June (15)
    • ►  May (22)
    • ►  April (26)
    • ►  March (18)
    • ►  February (16)
    • ►  January (18)
  • ▼  2015 (207)
    • ►  December (14)
    • ►  November (11)
    • ►  October (17)
    • ►  September (9)
    • ►  August (11)
    • ►  July (19)
    • ►  June (16)
    • ▼  May (22)
      • Quoted in Pennsylvania Law Weekly Article on Reser...
      • ARTICLE: Limitations on Cross-Examination of Lay ...
      • Judge Mariani of Middle District of PA Explores Pa...
      • Judge Mark of Monroe County Grants Summary Judgmen...
      • Preliminary Objections Against Allegations of Reck...
      • GOLF FOR A GOOD CAUSE -- JUNE 5 -- LACKAWANNA PRO ...
      • IME Expert May Rely Upon Another IME Report
      • Transcript of Jury Instructions Secured From Dauph...
      • Dauphin County Court Reconsiders and Grants Post-K...
      • ARTICLE: TO CALL OR NOT TO CALL: Dilemma Created...
      • PA Supreme Court Reaffirms No Direct Right of Acti...
      • Sample Voir Dire and Jury Instructions in a Post-K...
      • Violation of Dangerous Dog Law in Dog Bite Case Eq...
      • Check out the Search Box on Tort Talk
      • Foster Child Due Coverage as a 'Family Member' Und...
      • Summary Judgment Granted in Rocky Terrain Slip and...
      • Summary Judgment Granted in Monroe County Slip and...
      • Latest Facebook Discovery Decision Uncovered
      • SAVE THE DATE: JUNE 5 -- LACKAWANNA PRO BONO GOLF...
      • TORT TALK IS SIX YEARS OLD
      • PLEASE RESERVE YOUR SPOT FOR THE TORT TALK EXPO 2015
      • Pennsylvania Superior Court Reaffirms Test for Pro...
    • ►  April (26)
    • ►  March (20)
    • ►  February (21)
    • ►  January (21)
  • ►  2014 (238)
    • ►  December (14)
    • ►  November (17)
    • ►  October (20)
    • ►  September (33)
    • ►  August (18)
    • ►  July (26)
    • ►  June (18)
    • ►  May (17)
    • ►  April (29)
    • ►  March (13)
    • ►  February (18)
    • ►  January (15)
  • ►  2013 (221)
    • ►  December (15)
    • ►  November (28)
    • ►  October (29)
    • ►  September (22)
    • ►  August (13)
    • ►  July (7)
    • ►  June (10)
    • ►  May (23)
    • ►  April (18)
    • ►  March (19)
    • ►  February (21)
    • ►  January (16)
  • ►  2012 (277)
    • ►  December (21)
    • ►  November (27)
    • ►  October (21)
    • ►  September (15)
    • ►  August (21)
    • ►  July (22)
    • ►  June (14)
    • ►  May (30)
    • ►  April (26)
    • ►  March (30)
    • ►  February (26)
    • ►  January (24)
  • ►  2011 (296)
    • ►  December (23)
    • ►  November (39)
    • ►  October (17)
    • ►  September (15)
    • ►  August (20)
    • ►  July (26)
    • ►  June (31)
    • ►  May (23)
    • ►  April (22)
    • ►  March (23)
    • ►  February (41)
    • ►  January (16)
  • ►  2010 (305)
    • ►  December (14)
    • ►  November (26)
    • ►  October (26)
    • ►  September (25)
    • ►  August (29)
    • ►  July (27)
    • ►  June (27)
    • ►  May (36)
    • ►  April (26)
    • ►  March (31)
    • ►  February (15)
    • ►  January (23)
  • ►  2009 (133)
    • ►  December (23)
    • ►  November (24)
    • ►  October (13)
    • ►  September (14)
    • ►  August (11)
    • ►  July (15)
    • ►  June (14)
    • ►  May (19)

Labels

  • Abatement (1)
  • Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition (1)
  • Accident Reconstruction Expert (1)
  • ADA (1)
  • Adjacent Landowner (3)
  • Administrative Assistant (2)
  • Admissibility of Insurance Info At Trial (2)
  • Admissibility of Motor Vehicle Violations (1)
  • Admissibility of Photographs at Trial (1)
  • Adopted Business Records Doctrine (1)
  • ADR (4)
  • ADR Agreement (1)
  • Advanced Communication Technology (2)
  • Adverse Inference (3)
  • Affirmative Defenses (2)
  • Affordable Care Act (4)
  • Against The Weight of the Evidence (11)
  • Agency (13)
  • Airline (1)
  • Airplane (1)
  • Alcohol (3)
  • Alien-Venue Rule (1)
  • All-Risk Policy (5)
  • Allegations of Recklessness (85)
  • Alteration of Medical Records (1)
  • Altercation (2)
  • Ambulances (2)
  • Amendment of Pleadings (31)
  • American Legion (1)
  • Americans With Disability Act (1)
  • Amicus Curiae (1)
  • Animal Law (1)
  • Animals (1)
  • Answer and New Matter (10)
  • Appeal Quashed (6)
  • Appeals (17)
  • Arbitration (19)
  • ARD (1)
  • Arson (1)
  • Asbestos Litigation Issues (6)
  • Assault and Battery (4)
  • Assault and Battery Exclusion (3)
  • Assumption of Risk (37)
  • Assured Clear Distance Ahead Doctrine (6)
  • Athletes (1)
  • Attorney As Witness (2)
  • Attorney Refers Plaintiff to Doctor (2)
  • Attorney Registration (1)
  • Attorney Work Product Doctrine (25)
  • Attorney-Client Privilege (39)
  • Attorney's Fees (17)
  • Attractive Nuisance (1)
  • ATV (1)
  • Authentication (11)
  • Auto Business Exclusion (3)
  • Automobile Insurance (333)
  • Automobile Law (71)
  • Autonomous Vehicles (2)
  • BAC Evidence (3)
  • Bad Faith (303)
  • Bad Faith - Delay (8)
  • Bad Faith - Delays by Plaintiff (4)
  • Bad Faith - First Party Claims (6)
  • Bad Faith - General Liability Insurance (2)
  • Bad Faith - Household Exclusion (4)
  • Bad Faith - No Coverage (7)
  • Bad Faith - No Predicate Breach of Contract Claim (1)
  • Bad Faith - No PredicateBreach of Contract Claim (1)
  • Bad Faith - Plaintiff vs. Liability Carrier (3)
  • Bad Faith - Third Party Claims (3)
  • Bad Faith Discovery (26)
  • Bad Faith Expert (4)
  • Bad Faith Statute of Limitations (6)
  • Bad Faith-Claims Handling/Investigation (92)
  • Bad Faith-Delay (2)
  • Bad Faith-Homeowner's Policy (4)
  • Bad Faith-Low Ball Offer (36)
  • Bailment (2)
  • Bankruptcy (4)
  • Bankruptcy Stay (2)
  • Bar Fight (3)
  • Bedbugs (1)
  • Best Lawyers (2)
  • Bicycle Riders (1)
  • Bifurcation of Trial (29)
  • Bike Race (1)
  • Binding Arbitration Agreement (7)
  • Black Box (1)
  • Black Ice (2)
  • Bleachers (1)
  • Borrowed Servant Doctrine (3)
  • Brake Failure (1)
  • Breach of Contract (9)
  • Breach of Fiduciary Duty (5)
  • Breach of Good Faith and Fair Dealing (1)
  • Breach of Implied Warranty (1)
  • Breach of Warranty (5)
  • Breach of Warranty of Habitability (1)
  • Brief Writing (14)
  • Buffer (1)
  • Building Codes (2)
  • Building Inspectors (1)
  • Bus Accident (1)
  • Bus Stop (3)
  • Business Interruption Coverage (31)
  • Business Records Exception to Hearsay (3)
  • Cancellation of Insurance Policy (1)
  • Canoe (1)
  • Canoeing (1)
  • Case Management Orders (2)
  • Causal Connection to Maintenance or Use of a Motor Vehicle (1)
  • Cause of Slip or Trip and Fall (55)
  • Cell Phone Use (68)
  • Certificate of Merit (10)
  • Chain Reaction Accident (4)
  • Child Witness (1)
  • Children (3)
  • Chiropractors (2)
  • Choice of Laws (4)
  • Choice of Ways Doctrine (5)
  • Ciavarella (47)
  • Cigarette Smoke (1)
  • Civil Authority Provision (8)
  • Civil Conspiracy (5)
  • Civil Contempt (2)
  • Civil Litigation (34)
  • Civil Litigation Update (4)
  • Civil Rights Litigation (21)
  • Civility (8)
  • Claims File (1)
  • Claims Log Notes (1)
  • Claims Notes (1)
  • Claims Rep Handling Both Third Party and UIM Claim (1)
  • Claims Representative Liability (1)
  • Class Two Insured (2)
  • CLE (1)
  • CLE Seminars (119)
  • Clergy Abuse (1)
  • Closing Arguments (2)
  • Code of Cvility (2)
  • Collateral Estoppel (21)
  • Collateral Order Doctrine (3)
  • Collateral Source Rule (6)
  • College Student (2)
  • Colonel Henry Thomas (1)
  • Commercial Auto Policy (2)
  • Commercial General Liability Policy (1)
  • Commercial Tort (1)
  • Commmicable Disease Exclusion (1)
  • Common Areas (3)
  • Communicable Diseases (1)
  • Community Association (2)
  • Comparative Negligence Act (7)
  • Compelling Opinion Testimony from Non-Party Expert (1)
  • Compensable Pain (1)
  • Competency of Child Witness (1)
  • Complaint (2)
  • Complaint Drafting (31)
  • Complications of Surgery (1)
  • Compromise Verdict (5)
  • Conahan (27)
  • Condominium Act (1)
  • Condominium Association (1)
  • Conflicts of Interest (2)
  • Connor Objections (1)
  • Consent to Settle (1)
  • Consolidation (9)
  • Construction Litigation (13)
  • Construction Zone (1)
  • Constructive Fraud (1)
  • Consumer Expectation Test (4)
  • Contact With Potential Witnesses (2)
  • Contention Interrogatories (1)
  • Continuing Nuisance (1)
  • Continuing Trespass (1)
  • Continuous Representation Rule (1)
  • Contract of Adhesion (1)
  • Contractors (1)
  • Contribution Claim (3)
  • Contributory Negligence (9)
  • Conversion (1)
  • Coordinate Jurisdiction Rule (1)
  • Coordination of Actions (2)
  • Coordination of Benefits Provision (1)
  • Coronavirus (48)
  • Corporate Negligence (20)
  • Corporate Veil (2)
  • Corporations (6)
  • Correct Name of a Party In Pleadings (1)
  • Court Approval of Settlement (2)
  • Courtroom Etiquette (1)
  • Covenant Not to Compete (1)
  • Coverage Question (10)
  • Coverage Questions (103)
  • Covid-19 (69)
  • Crashworthiness (2)
  • Credentialing File (1)
  • Criminal (13)
  • Criminal Act of Third Person (11)
  • Criminal Acts Exclusions (5)
  • Criminal Charges (13)
  • Criminal Conviction (1)
  • Crimini Falsi Evidence (3)
  • Cross-Claims (2)
  • Cross-Examination (1)
  • Cross-Examination of Experts (20)
  • Crosswalks (1)
  • Cruise Line (1)
  • Cummins (341)
  • Cummins Law (15)
  • Cummins Mediation (47)
  • Cummins Mediation Services (53)
  • Cumulative Expert Testimony (3)
  • Curb (2)
  • Cyber-Bullying (1)
  • Damages (55)
  • Dangerous Dog Law (4)
  • Dangerous Road Conditions (1)
  • Data Breach (2)
  • Daubert Test (1)
  • Dead Body (1)
  • Dead Man' Rule (1)
  • Dead Man's Rule (6)
  • Death of a Plaintiff (2)
  • Death of Defendant (7)
  • Declaratory Judgment Actions (76)
  • Defamation (13)
  • Defamation on the Internet (2)
  • Default Judgment (19)
  • Defense Research Institute (1)
  • Deference Rule (1)
  • Definition of Bodily Injury (2)
  • Delay Damages (21)
  • Delayed Diagnosis (1)
  • Demand for Jury Trial (2)
  • Dental Injury (3)
  • Dental Malpractice (1)
  • Department of Human Services (2)
  • Deposition (42)
  • Deposition of a Doctor (6)
  • Deposition of Claims Representative (5)
  • Deposition Sanctions (4)
  • Depositions At Trial (1)
  • Depositions of Experts (7)
  • Design Defect (8)
  • Destruction/Removal of Trees (2)
  • Detntal Malpractice (1)
  • Dickinson School of Law (3)
  • Diminished Value Claim (1)
  • Direct Action (2)
  • Dirt Bike (2)
  • Disco (1)
  • Discontinuance (5)
  • Discovery Issues (147)
  • Discovery of Claims File (3)
  • Discovery of Financial Worth (3)
  • Discovery of Insurance Information (1)
  • Discovery of Prior Bad Faith Suits Against Carrier (2)
  • Discovery on Discovery Abuses (1)
  • Discovery Rule (15)
  • Discovery Sanctions (10)
  • Disqualification of Counsel (2)
  • Diversity Jurisdiction (9)
  • Divorce (1)
  • Doe (2)
  • Dog Bite (24)
  • Dog Law (6)
  • Domicile (2)
  • Door (1)
  • Dragonetti Act (1)
  • Dram Shop (10)
  • Driveway Immunity Provisions (1)
  • Driving Directions (1)
  • Driving Tips (1)
  • Driving While Intoxicated (11)
  • Drug Manufacturer (1)
  • Drug Overdose (3)
  • Drugs (1)
  • Duty (2)
  • Duty at Intersections (1)
  • Duty of Care Re Adjoining Roadways (2)
  • Duty to Control Conduct of Persons to Protect Others (2)
  • Duty to Cooperate (1)
  • Duty to Defend (16)
  • Duty to Indemnify (20)
  • Duty to Provide Coverage (7)
  • Duty to Read Contract (1)
  • Duty To Remove Vehicle From Road (1)
  • Duty To Watch Where Walking (1)
  • E-Discovery (2)
  • E-Filing (3)
  • Economic Damages (8)
  • Economic Loss Doctrine (2)
  • Economist Experts (1)
  • Electronic Filing (4)
  • Electronic Medical Records (1)
  • Electronically Stored Information (3)
  • Elevator (1)
  • Emails as Evidence (2)
  • Emergency Vehicles (2)
  • Emotional Distress Claims (13)
  • Employee At Will (1)
  • Employee Driving Drunk (3)
  • Employees (3)
  • Employer Auto Insurance Coverage (2)
  • Employer-Employee Liability (8)
  • Employer's Liability Exclusion (1)
  • Employers (3)
  • Employment Discrimination (5)
  • Employment Law (7)
  • EMR (1)
  • Enforce Subpoenas (1)
  • Enterprise Liability (1)
  • Entrustment Exclusion (1)
  • Entry of Appearance (1)
  • ERISA Plan (1)
  • Errata Sheet (1)
  • ESI (2)
  • Ethics (3)
  • Event Data Recorder (1)
  • Evidence (33)
  • Evidence of Governmental Standards (1)
  • Evidence of Industry Standards (2)
  • Evidence of Insurance (6)
  • Evidence of Marijuana Use (1)
  • Evidence of Prior Accidents or Injuries (1)
  • Evidence of Risks and Complications of Surgery (1)
  • Evidence of Settlement Negotiations (7)
  • Exceptions to Hearsay Rule (4)
  • Excess Liability Policy (2)
  • Excess Verdict (2)
  • Excessive Force (9)
  • Exculpatory Release (17)
  • Expert (7)
  • Expert Fees (2)
  • Expert on Causation (19)
  • Expert Report Deadlines (6)
  • Expert Testimony on Future Medical Care (3)
  • Experts (139)
  • Express Warranty (1)
  • Facebook Admissibility at Trial (6)
  • Facebook Discovery (55)
  • Factual Cause (5)
  • Failure to Join Indispensable Parties (1)
  • Failure to Promptly Report Claim (1)
  • Failure to Warn (4)
  • Fair Scope of Expert Report (13)
  • Fair Share Act (13)
  • Fall Asleep at Wheel (2)
  • Falling Items in Store (2)
  • False Arrest (1)
  • False Documents (1)
  • False Light Claim (1)
  • False Testimony (1)
  • Family Member Under Auto Policy (1)
  • Faulty Workmanship (1)
  • Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act (1)
  • Federal Court Subject Matter Jurisdiction (1)
  • Federal Court Vacancies (1)
  • Federal Employers' Liability Act (1)
  • Federal Healthcare Quality and Improvement Act of 1986 (1)
  • Federal Preemption (1)
  • Federal Tort Claims Act (1)
  • FELA (4)
  • Ferris Bueller (1)
  • Fetal Pain and Suffering (1)
  • Fibromyalgia (4)
  • Fiduciary Duty (3)
  • Fight (1)
  • Fight on Premises (3)
  • Filial Consortium Claims (1)
  • Financial Bias of Experts (4)
  • Fire Loss (5)
  • Fire Scene (1)
  • First Manifestation Rule (1)
  • First Party Benefits (31)
  • Fishing Expeditions in Discovery (2)
  • Fitness Club (2)
  • Fitting Platform (1)
  • Fleet Policy (3)
  • Food Poisoning (1)
  • Football (2)
  • Foreign Corporation (11)
  • Foreign Object in Food (1)
  • Forgery (1)
  • Forrest Gump (14)
  • Forum Non Conveniens (26)
  • Forum Selection Clause (7)
  • Fraternity (7)
  • Fraud (6)
  • Fraud Upon the Court (1)
  • Fraudulent Concealment (2)
  • Fraudulent Joinder of Defendants (3)
  • FRCP 54 Motion for Permission to Appeal (1)
  • Free Law Project (1)
  • Frye Standard (2)
  • Future Lost Wages (4)
  • Future Medical Expenses (24)
  • General Jurisdiction (25)
  • General Verdict Rule (1)
  • General-Verdict Rule (2)
  • Gist of the Action Doctrine (13)
  • Godfather (12)
  • Good Samaritan (1)
  • Governmental Immunity (8)
  • Governor Wolf (1)
  • GPS Use While Driving (1)
  • Grabbing Steering Wheel (1)
  • Grammar (1)
  • Gross Negligence (3)
  • Guardrails (1)
  • Guiderails (4)
  • Guns (1)
  • Gym (6)
  • Handrails (1)
  • Harmless Error (1)
  • Hazing (4)
  • Healthcare Quality Improvement Act (1)
  • Hearsay (9)
  • Heart and Lung Benefits (3)
  • Hills and Ridges Doctrine (42)
  • Hip Implant (1)
  • HMO's (1)
  • Homeowner's Association (4)
  • Homeowner's Insurance (19)
  • Horizontal Liability (1)
  • Hostile Witness (1)
  • Household Exclusion (76)
  • Humor (3)
  • Ice (19)
  • Identification of Defense Counsel At Trial (3)
  • Identity of Defendant (1)
  • IME (31)
  • Immunity (14)
  • Impeachment (2)
  • Implied Warranty (1)
  • implied warranty of habitability (2)
  • Implied Warranty of Merchantability (1)
  • Improper Venue (30)
  • In Camera Review (1)
  • In Loco Parentis (2)
  • In Pari Delicto (2)
  • Inconsistent Verdict (1)
  • Indemnification Claims (3)
  • Indemnification Clause (4)
  • Independent Contractor (1)
  • Independent Medical Examinations (36)
  • Independent Psychiatric Examinations (28)
  • Industrial Accident (1)
  • Industry Standards Evidence (2)
  • Informed Consent (4)
  • Inherent Risk (2)
  • Inmate (1)
  • Inquiry Notice (1)
  • Insomnia (1)
  • Instagram (1)
  • Insurance Agency (3)
  • Insurance Agent (8)
  • Insurance Broker (1)
  • Insurance Defense (8)
  • Insurance Fraud (1)
  • Intended User (1)
  • Intentional Acts Exclusion (6)
  • Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (6)
  • Intentional Misrepresentation (1)
  • Interest (1)
  • Interlocutory Orders/Appeals (10)
  • Internet Defamation (2)
  • Intervene in an Action (4)
  • Intoxication (14)
  • Intrusion on Seclusion (1)
  • Invasion of Privacy (1)
  • Investment Management Company (1)
  • Invitee (3)
  • IOLTA Accounts (1)
  • Issue Preclusion (1)
  • Jane Doe (4)
  • John Doe (4)
  • Joinder of Additional Defendant (7)
  • Joint Tortfeasor Release (3)
  • Joint Tortfeasors (3)
  • Joint Venture (1)
  • Judge Amesbury (7)
  • Judge Bisignani-Moyle (3)
  • Judge Brann (30)
  • Judge Burke (7)
  • Judge Caputo (30)
  • Judge Carlson (1)
  • Judge Chelak (8)
  • Judge Conaboy (10)
  • Judge Conner (1)
  • Judge Connor (2)
  • Judge Cosgrove (5)
  • Judge Domalakes (1)
  • Judge Donohue (1)
  • Judge Gartley (5)
  • Judge Gaughan (1)
  • Judge Gelb (9)
  • Judge Gibbons (29)
  • Judge Goodman (3)
  • Judge Gray (6)
  • Judge Hamill (1)
  • Judge Harold A. Thomson (8)
  • Judge Hertzberg (2)
  • Judge Higgins (6)
  • Judge Hughes (6)
  • Judge James (1)
  • Judge James M. Munley (4)
  • Judge Jarbola (1)
  • Judge John E. Jones (1)
  • Judge Jones (3)
  • Judge Julia K. Munley (3)
  • Judge Kameen (2)
  • Judge Klein (1)
  • Judge Kosik (11)
  • Judge Leeson (13)
  • Judge Legg (2)
  • Judge Mannion (27)
  • Judge Mariani (26)
  • Judge Mark (1)
  • Judge Mazzoni (18)
  • Judge McFadden (1)
  • Judge Mehalchick (7)
  • Judge Michael Toole (12)
  • Judge Miller (1)
  • Judge Minora (67)
  • Judge Munley (16)
  • Judge Nanovic (4)
  • Judge Nealon (316)
  • Judge O'Brien (1)
  • Judge Pierantoni (3)
  • Judge Polachek-Gartley (4)
  • Judge Quinones Alejandro (1)
  • Judge Richard Conaboy (1)
  • Judge Saporito (6)
  • Judge Savage (1)
  • Judge Shurtleff (1)
  • Judge Sibum (18)
  • Judge Stevens (4)
  • Judge Strassberger (1)
  • Judge Thomson (5)
  • Judge Van Jura (6)
  • Judge Vanaskie (7)
  • Judge Vough (3)
  • Judge Wallitsch (1)
  • Judge Wecht (3)
  • Judge Wettick (10)
  • Judge William Nealon (2)
  • Judge Williamson (74)
  • Judge Zulick (28)
  • Judges (1)
  • Judgment Non Pros (8)
  • Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict (4)
  • Judicial Admission (2)
  • Judicial Candidates (4)
  • Judicial Retirement Age (1)
  • Jurisdiction (10)
  • Jurisdiction By Registration in PA (4)
  • Jury (1)
  • Jury Instructions (18)
  • Jury Note Taking (2)
  • Jury Questions During Deliberations (1)
  • Jury Selection (21)
  • Jury Size (2)
  • Jury Trials (5)
  • Jury Verdicts (37)
  • Justice Wecht (7)
  • Knee Replacement (1)
  • Koke (1)
  • Koken (187)
  • Lack of Cooperation (1)
  • Lackaa Pro Bono (1)
  • Lackawanna Bar Association (3)
  • Lackawanna County (21)
  • Lackawanna Pro Bono (37)
  • Ladders (1)
  • Landlord Out-of-Possession (4)
  • Landlord/Tenant (11)
  • Landscaping (1)
  • Law of the Case Doctrine (1)
  • Law Practice Management (3)
  • Lay Opinion on Speed (2)
  • Lay Witness Testimony (6)
  • Learned Intermediary Doctrine (1)
  • Learned Treatise (3)
  • Learner's Permit (1)
  • Leash Law (1)
  • Left Turn (1)
  • Legal (1)
  • Legal History (1)
  • Legal Malpractice (9)
  • Legal Malpractice Claims (8)
  • Legal Research (6)
  • Legal Writing (12)
  • Letters Rogatory (1)
  • Liability Credit for UIM Carrier (3)
  • Liability of a Claims Representative (1)
  • Liability of Mental Health Professionals (3)
  • Liability of Spouse for Acts by Other Spouse (1)
  • Liberal Construction of Rules of Civil Procedure (1)
  • Licensee (3)
  • Liens (8)
  • Life Care Plan Expert (1)
  • Life Expectancy (2)
  • Limit of Protection Clause (1)
  • Limitation of Actions Provision (5)
  • Limited Tort (38)
  • Liquor Liability Exclusion (1)
  • Litigation Tips (12)
  • Locating Parties or Witnesses (1)
  • Lokuta (2)
  • Long Arm Statute (7)
  • Loss of Consortium (3)
  • Luzerne County (82)
  • Luzerne County Local Rules (1)
  • Lyft (2)
  • Magisterial District Courts (2)
  • Malfunction Theory (1)
  • Malicious Prosecution (2)
  • Manufacturing Defect (7)
  • Marijuana (2)
  • Mask (1)
  • Material Misrepresentations (4)
  • MCARE Act (18)
  • med (1)
  • Mediation (6)
  • Mediation Privilege (1)
  • Medical Marijuana (3)
  • Medical Devices (7)
  • Medical Event Defense (2)
  • Medical Malpractice (196)
  • Medical Malpractice Defendant as Expert (1)
  • Medical Marijuana (5)
  • Medical Practice Act (1)
  • Medical Records (4)
  • Medical Tests (1)
  • Medicare Set-Asides (8)
  • Medicare/Medicaid (28)
  • Medicine (1)
  • Mental Health Procedures Act (5)
  • Mentally Unstable Persons (5)
  • Mention of Insurance At Trial (3)
  • Mere Happening of Accident Not Negligence (1)
  • Methodology of Expert Opinion (3)
  • Microorganism Exclusion (1)
  • Ministerial Exception (1)
  • Misdiagnosis (1)
  • Missing Stop Sign (3)
  • Mistake in Complaint (1)
  • Mistrial (1)
  • Misuse of a Product (4)
  • Mock Trial (65)
  • Monroe County (4)
  • Morgue (1)
  • Motion Alternative Service (1)
  • Motion for Continuance (3)
  • Motion for Protective Order (2)
  • Motion for Reconsideration (4)
  • Motion for Recusal (7)
  • Motion to Abate (1)
  • Motion to Amend (10)
  • Motion to Coordinate Actions (1)
  • Motion to Quash Subpoenas (1)
  • Motion to Remand (6)
  • Motor Vehicle Exception to Tort Claims Act (3)
  • Motorcycle (11)
  • Mudano Rule (3)
  • Multiple Accidents (1)
  • Multiple Defense Counsel at Trial (1)
  • Multiple Trigger Theory of Liability (1)
  • Municipal Liability (7)
  • Named Driver Exclusion (3)
  • Named Driver Only Policy (3)
  • Nanty-Glo Rule (1)
  • Negligence Claim Against Claims Adjuster/Representative (1)
  • Negligence of Security Company (1)
  • Negligence Per Se (12)
  • Negligent Entrustment (15)
  • Negligent Hiring (5)
  • Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress (31)
  • Negligent Retention (3)
  • Negligent Spoliation of Evidence Claim (1)
  • Negligent Supervision (7)
  • Neighbors (1)
  • Networking (2)
  • Neuropsychological Review (12)
  • Neutral Arbitrator (1)
  • New Jersey Automobile Reparation Reform Act (1)
  • New Matter (8)
  • No Duty Rule (8)
  • No Felony Conviction Rule (1)
  • No-Duty Rule (2)
  • Non-Precedential Decisions (1)
  • Nonsuit (2)
  • Northeastern Pennsylvania (14)
  • Notes by Investigator (1)
  • Notice Defense (8)
  • Notice to Attend Trial (2)
  • Notice to Governmental Agency Defendant (3)
  • Nuisance (2)
  • Nurse Practitioner (1)
  • Nursing Homes (14)
  • Obama (8)
  • Obamacare (3)
  • Objections at Depositions (5)
  • Objections at Trial (1)
  • Occupying a Vehicle (1)
  • Occurrence (1)
  • Occurrence Rule (1)
  • Online Marketers (2)
  • Open and Obvious Danger (7)
  • Opening Default Judgment (16)
  • Opening Statements (1)
  • Opinion of Treating Doctor (12)
  • Opioids (2)
  • Oral Argument (1)
  • Original Sources Exception (1)
  • Ostensible Agency (8)
  • Out-of-Possession Landlord (9)
  • Paid or Payable (1)
  • Parent (3)
  • Parent-Subsidiary (1)
  • Parental Liability for Acts of Child (1)
  • Parking Lot (3)
  • Party Opponent Exclusion to Hearsay Rule (2)
  • Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act (4)
  • Patient Safety Reports (1)
  • Peculiar Risk Exception (2)
  • Pedestrians (4)
  • Peer Review (22)
  • Peer Review Protection Act (13)
  • Peer-to-Peer Car Share Rentals (1)
  • Pelvic Mesh (3)
  • Penalty for Driving Uninsured (2)
  • Pending Criminal Charges (8)
  • PennDOT (15)
  • Pennsylvania Defense Institute (62)
  • Pennsylvania Emergency Management Services Code (2)
  • Pennsylvania Law Weekly (2)
  • Pennsylvania State Police (3)
  • Pennsylvania Superior Court (1)
  • Pennsylvania Supreme Court (1)
  • Personal Care Home (1)
  • Personal Jurisdiction (37)
  • Petition to Enforce Settlement (6)
  • Petition to Withdraw as Counsel (1)
  • Philadelphia Eagles (1)
  • Photographs (2)
  • Physical Therapists (1)
  • Physician's Assistants (1)
  • Piercing the Corporate Veil (1)
  • Pike County (13)
  • PIP Claims (2)
  • PIP Exams (2)
  • Pitbulls (4)
  • Pleadings (45)
  • Podiatric Malpractice (2)
  • Podiatrist (2)
  • Points for Charge (1)
  • POlice (4)
  • Police Pursuit (7)
  • Police Reports (7)
  • Policy Exclusions (11)
  • Polisher (1)
  • Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act (16)
  • Pollution Event Coverage (2)
  • Post (1)
  • Post Office (1)
  • Post-Concussion Syndrome (1)
  • Post-Injury Release Agreement (1)
  • Post-Koken (198)
  • Post-Koken Jury Instructions (4)
  • Post-Koken Trial Procedure (9)
  • Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (1)
  • Post-Trial Motions (2)
  • Postal Truck (1)
  • Pothole (2)
  • Pothole Exception (2)
  • Powerpoint (3)
  • Practice of law (26)
  • Practice Tips (93)
  • Prayer for Relief (1)
  • Pre-Complaint Discovery (3)
  • Preclusion of Expert (32)
  • Preliminary Objection - Impertinent Matter (2)
  • Preliminary Objections (1)
  • Premise (1)
  • Premises Liability (217)
  • Prescription Medical Device (3)
  • Present Value of Future Medical Costs (1)
  • Preserving Issues on Appeal (2)
  • Preserving Objections (4)
  • Prior Bad Acts (1)
  • Prior Convictions (1)
  • Private Nuisance (1)
  • Privilege Against Self-Incrimination (11)
  • Production of Photographs in Discovery (1)
  • Productivity (1)
  • Products Liability (125)
  • Professional Courtesy (21)
  • Professionalis (1)
  • Professionalism (38)
  • Promissory Estoppel (2)
  • Property Damages (11)
  • Property Insurance Coverage (14)
  • Property Owners Association (1)
  • Protective Order (3)
  • Proximate Causation (17)
  • Psychiatrist Liability (3)
  • Psychiatrist-Patient Privilege (2)
  • Psychologist Liability (2)
  • PTSD (1)
  • Public Access Policy of the Unified Judicial System of Pennsylvania (3)
  • Public Nuisance (1)
  • Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (1)
  • Public Schools (1)
  • Punitive Damages (156)
  • Punitive Damages Financial Worth Discovery (8)
  • Qualifications of Expert (2)
  • Qualified Immunity (4)
  • Quantum Meruit Recovery (1)
  • Quash Appeal (1)
  • Rabies Act (1)
  • Real Estate Exception to Immunity (4)
  • Real Estate Transactions (1)
  • Real Property Exception (1)
  • Rear End Collision (1)
  • Recklessness (83)
  • Records Custodian (1)
  • Recreational Use of Land and Water Act (3)
  • Recusal (5)
  • Reduce Stress (2)
  • Reformation of Insurance Policy (1)
  • Refusal of Medical Tests (1)
  • Regular Use Exclusion (36)
  • Regularly Used Non-Owned Exclusion (35)
  • Rehabilitation Act (1)
  • Reinsurance (1)
  • Relation Back Doctrine (2)
  • Releases (40)
  • Remand to State Court (27)
  • Remittitur (8)
  • Remote Court Proceedings (1)
  • Removal to Federal Court (25)
  • Rental Vehicle (2)
  • Reply to New Matter (2)
  • Request For Court Reporter (1)
  • Requests for Admissions (4)
  • Res Ipsa Loquitur (8)
  • Res Judicata (2)
  • Rescue Doctrine (1)
  • Reservation of Rights Letter (5)
  • Reserves (1)
  • Residency (6)
  • Resident Relative (4)
  • Residential Construction (1)
  • Residents Association (1)
  • Respondeat Superior Liability (4)
  • Restrictive Covenant (1)
  • Retained Control Exception (3)
  • Retroactive Application of Case Law (1)
  • Retroactivity of Law (1)
  • Right To Jury Trial (1)
  • Right-To-Know Law (1)
  • Risk-Uitility Test (2)
  • Risks of Surgery (1)
  • Romney (1)
  • Rule 126 (1)
  • Rule 1925 (1)
  • Rules of Professional Conduct (5)
  • Rules of the Road (1)
  • Sackett (9)
  • Sanctions (11)
  • Sanctions for Delayed Payment of Settlement Funds (1)
  • Scandalous and Impertinent Matter (1)
  • Schools (1)
  • Scope of Examination of Witness at Trial (4)
  • Sealing Judicial Record (2)
  • Sealing the Settlement (4)
  • Seat Belt Defense (7)
  • Second Deposition (2)
  • Section 1983 (19)
  • Self-Driven Vehicles (3)
  • Self-Incrimination (10)
  • Sentinel Event Report (2)
  • SEPTA (1)
  • Service Dogs (1)
  • Service of Process (46)
  • Settled Defendants (2)
  • Settlement Negotiations (16)
  • Settlements (18)
  • Sexual Abuse Claims (2)
  • Sexual Assault (2)
  • Shocks the Conscience (4)
  • Shooting Case (4)
  • Short Story (1)
  • Sidewalk Exception (1)
  • Single Entity Liability (1)
  • Single Satisfaction Doctrine (1)
  • Site Inspections (1)
  • Skier's Responsibility Act (6)
  • Skiing (14)
  • Slander (1)
  • Sliding Door (1)
  • Slip and Fall (132)
  • Smoke Detectors (1)
  • Snap Removal to Federal Court (1)
  • Snow (14)
  • Snow Falling From Roof (1)
  • Snow Removal Contractor (5)
  • Snow Tubing (6)
  • Snowboarding (2)
  • Snowmobile (1)
  • Social Host Liability (6)
  • Social Media Evidence (9)
  • Social Networking Sites (78)
  • Social Security Disability (3)
  • Sovereign Immunity (9)
  • Speaking Objections (1)
  • Special Damages (1)
  • Special Needs Trusts (1)
  • Specific Jurisdiction (11)
  • Speed (2)
  • Speed Bump (1)
  • Spoliation of Evidence (31)
  • Stacking (66)
  • Statement Made for Medical Diagnosis or Treatment Hearsay Exception (2)
  • Statute of Limitations (85)
  • Statute of Limitations-Bad Faith Claim (1)
  • Statute of Limitations-UIM Claim (5)
  • Statute of Limitations-UM Claim (2)
  • Statute of Repose (4)
  • Statutory Caps (2)
  • Statutory Employer (4)
  • Stop Signs (2)
  • Storm Damage (1)
  • Stream of Commerce Jurisdiction (1)
  • Stream of Commerce Personal Jurisdiction (3)
  • Streets Exception (1)
  • Strict Liability (98)
  • Striking Default Judgment (9)
  • Student Athl (1)
  • Student Athletes (1)
  • Student Suicide (2)
  • Subpoena To Attend and Testify (3)
  • Subpoenas (7)
  • Subrogation (16)
  • subsequent remedial measures (2)
  • Substitution of Estate for Deceased Party (3)
  • Sudden Emergency (13)
  • Sudden Medical Emergency (1)
  • Sudden Stoppage on Road (1)
  • Suicide (7)
  • Summer Camp (1)
  • Supersedeas (1)
  • Superseding Cause (1)
  • Supplemental Deposition (1)
  • Supreme Court (2)
  • Surveillance (12)
  • Survival Action (10)
  • Swimming Pool (1)
  • Termination (1)
  • Testimony by Police Officer (1)
  • Testimony on Speed (2)
  • Texting (2)
  • Third Circuit (2)
  • Third Party Bad Faith (2)
  • Title Insurance (1)
  • To A Reasonable Degree of Certainty (1)
  • Tolling Provisions (1)
  • Tort Claims Act (8)
  • Tort Reform (2)
  • Tort Talk (171)
  • Tort Talk Tip (5)
  • Tortious Interference of a Corpse (1)
  • Tortious Interference with Contracts (4)
  • Toxicologist (2)
  • Trade Secrets (1)
  • Traffic Citations (3)
  • Trampoline Park (1)
  • Transfer of Venue (50)
  • Transient Rub of Life (4)
  • Traveling Employee (1)
  • Treating Physicians (9)
  • Treble Damages (1)
  • Tree Stand (1)
  • Trees (6)
  • Trespass (5)
  • Trespasser (1)
  • Trespassers (4)
  • Trial (10)
  • Trial Practice (1)
  • Trip and Fall (77)
  • Trivial Defect Doctrine (17)
  • Trucking Accident (35)
  • Trump (1)
  • Twitter (2)
  • Two Schools of Thought Defense (1)
  • Twombly/Iqbal Standards (6)
  • U-Turns (1)
  • U.S. Supreme Court (4)
  • Uber (7)
  • Uber and Lyft (10)
  • UIM (467)
  • UIM Benefits Set-Off (8)
  • UIM Exhaustion Clauses (8)
  • UIM Rejection Form (27)
  • UIM Sign Down Forms (10)
  • UM (146)
  • UM Rejection Form (7)
  • UM Sign Down Forms (1)
  • Umbrella Policy (3)
  • Unconscionability of Contract/Arbitration Agreement (2)
  • Under (1)
  • underinsured motorists benefits (23)
  • Underinsured Motorists Claims (446)
  • Unfair Claims Settlement Practices Act (1)
  • Unfair Insurance Practices Act (3)
  • Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (15)
  • Unin (1)
  • Uninsured Motorists Benefits Statute of Limitations (1)
  • Uninsured Motorists Claims (144)
  • United States Supreme Court (1)
  • Unlicensed Driver Exclusion (1)
  • Unlisted Resident Driver Exclusion (3)
  • Unreasonable Search and Seizure (4)
  • Valet Service (2)
  • Vandalism (1)
  • Vehicle Damage Photos (1)
  • Venue (61)
  • Verdict Slip (1)
  • Verdicts (13)
  • Verification to Complaint (1)
  • Veterinary Malpractice (1)
  • Vexatious Conduct (1)
  • Vicarious Liability (18)
  • Video of Accident (3)
  • Video Surveillance (6)
  • Videotaped Depositions (1)
  • Virus Exclusion (10)
  • Visibly Intoxicated (5)
  • Vocational Experts (7)
  • Voir Dire (20)
  • Voluntary Manslaughter (1)
  • Wage Loss Claims (6)
  • Waiver (16)
  • Waiver Forms (39)
  • Waiver of Issues On Appeal (5)
  • Waiver of Privilege At Trial (1)
  • Walking Backwards (1)
  • Warnings (5)
  • Water Park (2)
  • Watercraft Exclusion (1)
  • Wave (1)
  • Wave-on Liability (1)
  • Waving Motorist (1)
  • Wet Floor Sign (1)
  • Wheelchair (1)
  • Wilkes Law School (2)
  • Witnesses (3)
  • Work Injury (1)
  • Workers' Compensation (30)
  • Writ of Summons (1)
  • Wrong Defendant Sued (4)
  • Wrongful Death (14)
  • Wrongful Discharge (2)
  • Wyoming County (1)
  • Zero Verdict (14)
  • Zoom (8)

DISCLAIMER

Daniel E. Cummins, Esquire publishes this site for general informational purposes only. The materials in this website do not constitute legal advice, do necessarily reflect the opinions of the CUMMINS LAW law firm or its members, are not an indicator of future results, and are not guaranteed to be current, up-to-date, or applicable to your circumstances. Under no circumstances should you rely upon the information contained in this website without first seeking out and securing your own attorney. This website and the transmission is not in any way intended, and does not operate, to create an attorney-client relationship with any person or entity. No attorney-client relationship will be created with Daniel E. Cummins, Esquire or the CUMMINS LAW law firm unless and until you have purposefully sought to retain us, we have had a chance to clear any conflicts, and you receive a letter from us confirming the creation of an attorney-client relationship and explaining the parameters of the relationship. It is also noted that Attorney Daniel E. Cummins and the CUMMINS LAW law firm only practice law in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. With respect to the links on this website, they are not intended as referrals to, or endorsements of, those linked sites. Neither Daniel E. Cummins nor the CUMMINS LAW law firm can guarantee that the material accessible from this website will be virus free. In creating this website, Daniel E. Cummins and the CUMMINS LAW law firm have strived to comply with all legal and ethical requirements. Neither Daniel E. Cummins nor the CUMMINS LAW law firm or its members intend to practice law in any jurisidiction where they are not licensed to practice. Daniel E. Cummins and the CUMMINS LAW law firm DISCLAIM ALL EXPRESS WARRANTIES AND IMPLIED WARRANTIES INCLUDING WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.