Friday, June 30, 2017

Amount of Advertising in a County by a Defendant Does Not Support Venue; Transfer of Venue Granted

In the case of Wyszynski v. Greenwood Gaming & Entertainment, Inc., 2017 Pa. Super. 108 (Pa. Super. April 17, 2017) (Op. by Ransom, J.), the Pennsylvania Superior Court ruled that a trial court did not abuse its discretion of transferring a slip and fall case from Philadelphia County to Bucks County under the case presented.  

According to the Opinion, the Defendant’s registered office and principal place of business was in Bucks County and the cause of action occurred in Bucks County.

The Plaintiff attempted to file in Philadelphia under an argument that the amount of the Defendant’s advertising in Philadelphia supported venue in that county.

The Superior Court rejected this argument and noted that the case law make clear that advertising was incidental to the purpose of a business and that, therefore, no matter how pervasive a business’ advertising was, such advertising would not satisfy the test for venue set forth in the case of Purcell v. Bryn Mawr Hospital, 579 A.2d 1282 (Pa. 1990). 

As such the Superior Court found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in transferring the case to Bucks County.

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

Source:  “Digest of Recent Opinions.”  Pennsylvania Law Weekly (May 2, 2017). 

No comments:

Post a Comment

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