According to the Opinion, this matter involved a delayed cancer diagnosis case.
Prior to trial, the Plaintiff reached a settlement with all parties except one and proceeded to trial against that last remaining party.
The Plaintiff, along with the settling Defendants, requested the trial court to dismiss the settling Defendants prior to trial because the remaining Defendant did not have any expert to provide an expert opinion against the settling Defendants. Moreover, the remaining Defendant did not file any crossclaim against the settled Defendants. Also, the Plaintiff did not have any expert testimony that was critical of the settling Defendants that would be presented at trial. At the trial level, it was the Plaintiff’s position that it was legally impossible for there to be a prima facie case established against the settling Defendants and that, as such, those Defendants should be dismissed.
The trial court disagreed and kept those settling Defendants in the case, relying upon the Fair Share Act in doing so.
As the case proceeded, the trial court did end up dismissing one of the settling Defendants after the Plaintiff’s case-in-chief was completed. The remaining other settled Defendants were dismissed just before closing arguments.
At trial, the Plaintiffs claimed that there was prejudice to the Plaintiff because the jury was left wondering why these Defendants were dismissed after they participated in the trial.
As the case proceeded, the trial court did end up dismissing one of the settling Defendants after the Plaintiff’s case-in-chief was completed. The remaining other settled Defendants were dismissed just before closing arguments.
At trial, the Plaintiffs claimed that there was prejudice to the Plaintiff because the jury was left wondering why these Defendants were dismissed after they participated in the trial.
The jury ended up entering a defense verdict.
The Plaintiff appealed and, in this Superior Court decision, the appellate court reversed the trial court’s decision and remanded the matter for further proceedings after finding that the trial court’s reliance upon Fair Share Act was misplaced.
Judge Panella, who wrote this Opinion, as well as the Fair Share Act case of Spencer v. Johnson, 249 A.3d 529 (Pa. Super. 2021), noted that the Superior Court has concluded that, for the “Fair Share Act to apply, the Plaintiff’s negligence must be an issue in the case.” See Op. at 13 citing Spencer, 249 A.3d at 559.
The court noted that, in this case, the Plaintiff’s negligence was not at issue in the case. As such, the court ruled that the trial court erred in relying upon the Fair Share Act to keep Defendants in the case.
The court otherwise noted that there is no absolute right to have settled Co-Defendants on a Verdict Sheet. Rather, the appellate court noted that a trial court must determine whether any evidence of the settled Co-Defendant’s liability exists in the case presented before deciding whether that party should be put on the Verdict Slip.
Anyone wishing to review a copy of this non-precedential decision may click this LINK.
I send thanks to Attorney Carmen J. Nocera of the Pittsburgh law firm of Harry S. Cohen & Associates, P.C. for bringing this case to my attention.
The Plaintiff appealed and, in this Superior Court decision, the appellate court reversed the trial court’s decision and remanded the matter for further proceedings after finding that the trial court’s reliance upon Fair Share Act was misplaced.
Judge Panella, who wrote this Opinion, as well as the Fair Share Act case of Spencer v. Johnson, 249 A.3d 529 (Pa. Super. 2021), noted that the Superior Court has concluded that, for the “Fair Share Act to apply, the Plaintiff’s negligence must be an issue in the case.” See Op. at 13 citing Spencer, 249 A.3d at 559.
The court noted that, in this case, the Plaintiff’s negligence was not at issue in the case. As such, the court ruled that the trial court erred in relying upon the Fair Share Act to keep Defendants in the case.
The court otherwise noted that there is no absolute right to have settled Co-Defendants on a Verdict Sheet. Rather, the appellate court noted that a trial court must determine whether any evidence of the settled Co-Defendant’s liability exists in the case presented before deciding whether that party should be put on the Verdict Slip.
Anyone wishing to review a copy of this non-precedential decision may click this LINK.
I send thanks to Attorney Carmen J. Nocera of the Pittsburgh law firm of Harry S. Cohen & Associates, P.C. for bringing this case to my attention.
Source of image: Photo by Tima Miroshnichenko on www.pexels.com.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.