Congratulations to the Honorable Thomas I. Vanaskie (Ret.) on Being Honored Later This Week

 

Filing of Complaint in District Magistrate Satisfies Statute of Limitations

In the case of Whittington v. Daniels, No. 47 MAP 2025 (Pa. 2026) (Op. by Mundy, J.), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court addressed the issue of whether the filing of a Complaint in a magisterial district court serves to toll the statute of limitations for all time.

This matter arose out of a contractual dispute.

There was a district magistrate hearing and the case was appealed to the Court of Common Pleas where the Plaintiff was required to file a new Complaint under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure within twenty (20) days.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiffs failed to file their Complaint and the case became dormant until a later Notice of Intent to Terminate was issued by the trial court. The Plaintiffs then filed a Complaint at that point.

The Defendant responded by indicating that the claim was barred by the applicable statute of limitations.

After the matter later went up to the Pennsylvania Superior Court, that court found that the filing of a magisterial district justice Complaint tolls the statue of limitations only during the pendency of the magisterial district court case and that the statute again begins to run after the expiration of the twenty (20) day period to file a Complaint when the district magistrate case is appealed to the Court of Common Pleas.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed the Superior Court’s decision as erroneous.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that the filing of a magisterial district justice Complaint tolls the statute of limitations for any cause of action based upon the factual allegations in that district magistrate Complaint, including during any appeal.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court additionally held that the subsequent filing of a Common Pleas Court Complaint is simply a continuation of the original action, not the commencement of a new action.

As such, the Supreme Court ruled that the Plaintiff’s cause of action was not barred by the statute of limitations.

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


Source: Justia Daily Opinion Summaries: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania (Oct. 30, 2026).

Trial Court Grants Summary Judgment Based on Borrowed Servant Doctrine

In the case of Almonte v. Roaring Creek Egg Farm, No. 2019-CV-03731 (C.P. Luz. Co. Oct. 7, 2026 Pierantoni, J.), the court granted various Motions for Summary Judgment filed by various Defendants in a construction accident case.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff, while working as a temporary construction laborer, allegedly fell approximately three (3) stories through an opening of a building that was being constructed and sustained injuries as a result.

One of the Defendants, Hershey Equipment Company, was granted summary judgment under the borrowed servant doctrine.

The Hershey Equipment Company asserted that, based upon the record before the court, the Plaintiff was its borrowed servant and, therefore, Hershey Equipment Company, was immune from the tort lawsuit under the Worker’s Compensation Act.

The court agreed and granted this Defendant summary judgment on this basis.

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


I sending thanks to Attorney Ryan McBride of the Scranton office of the Weber Gallagher law firm for bringing this case to my attention.

Source of image:  Photo by Josh Olalde on www.unsplash.com.

Still Time to Register or Sponsor

 

SCHEDULE YOUR MEDIATION BEFORE THE SPOTS RUN OUT

                       LOOKING TO BRING YOUR CASE TO A CLOSE?

LIMITED SLOTS AVAILABLE

PLEASE CALL TODAY TO SCHEDULE YOUR APPOINTMENT

570-319-5899

dancummins@cumminslaw.net

Superior Court Provides Guidance on Choosing an Administrator of an Estate

In the case of In Re: Estate of Staten, No. 1455 MDA 2025 (Pa. Super. Oct. 8, 2026 Bender, P.J.E., McLaughlin, J., and Kunselman, J.) (Op. by Kunselman, J.), the court addressed issues regarding the qualification and selection of an administrator of the estate for a deceased person.

It is noted here that this issue could become important in the case where a plaintiff or a defendant involved in a civil litigation matter has passed away and an administrator of the estate of the deceased party has to be appointed so that the estate can be substituted as the party defendant for the deceased party.

In this case, the victim died intestate, and a dispute arose in the Orphan’s Court regarding who should be appointed the administrator of the estate of the victim. 

The options were the victim’s mother or, as preferred by the mothers of the victim’s two minor children, an estate administration attorney contacted by the plaintiff's attorney in a related personal injury litigation.

The Orphan’s Court appointed the estate administration attorney. The victim’s mother appealed.

On appeal, the Superior Court provided an overview of Pennsylvania law regarding the qualification and selection of estate administrators.

Under 20 Pa. C.S.A. §3155(b) there is listed the different types of persons who could be appointed as an administrator of an estate. Within that statute is a category for “other fit persons” who could be appointed as an administrator to an estate.

In this matter, the victim’s mother asserted that her family relationship with the victim should give her priority of appointment over the estate administration attorney.

In reviewing the law, the Pennsylvania Superior Court ruled that the statute does not give preference or priority over certain persons, such as those who are family and/or have a blood relationship with the decedent, within the “other fit persons” category of individuals eligible to be granted Letter of Administration under the statute.

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


Source: The Pa. Super. Blog by Jon Bruno of Bruno Litigation, LLC in Pittsburgh, PA.j

Source of image:  Photo by Jon Tyson on www.unsplash.com.

Still Time To Register For Next Thursday's Lackawanna County Bench Bar Conference

 

On November 5, 2026, Daniel E. Cummins, Esq. of Cummins Law and Neil T. O'Donnell of O'Donnell Law will be presenting a CLE program entitled "2026 Civil Litigation Update With Practice Tips" at the Lackawanna County Bench Bar Conference set to take place at the Hilton Scranton Hotel and Conference Center.

Attendance at the Lackawanna County Bench Bar Conference is open to members of the Lackawanna Bar Association Conference and will be held in person.

Please consider registering to attend the upcoming November 5, 2026 Lackawanna County by utilizing this LINK.

Please also note that a version of this presentation may also be offered on Zoom through another sponsor in the near future. Details to follow.

Are Settlement Proceeds From a Survival Action Income For Purposes of Determining Child Support Obligations?

In the case of Birkmire v. Zeppieri, No. 802 WDA 2025 (Pa. Super. Oct. 1, 2026 Bender, P.J.E., Lane, J., and Stabile, J.) (Op. by Stabile, J.), the Pennsylvania Superior Court addressed the issue of survival action settlement proceeds and child support obligations.

According to the Opinion, a mother’s child was tragically killed while walking to a school bus stop.

The mother filed a wrongful death and survival action. The case was eventually settled.

The Plaintiff put 100% of the amount of the settlement as survival damages to the child’s estate.

A family court later determined that the settlement proceeds were income to the mother for purposes of determining the mother’s child support obligation for another child.

In this decision, the Pennsylvania Superior Court vacated the trial court’s decision and remanded the case for further proceedings. The Pennsylvania Superior Court panel concluded that the settlement proceeds were not income for purposes of determining the mother’s child support obligations.

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


Source: The Pa. Super. Blog written by Jon Bruno of Bruno Litigation, LLC in Pittsburgh, PA.

Source of image:  Photo by Sasun Bughdarya on www.unsplash.com

Save the Date - November 12, 2026 - Lackawanna Pro Bono Gala

 

It's Gotta Be The Lawsuit: Motion To Compel Arbitration Filed by Defendant Denied After Defendant Participated Extensively in Litigation Process

In the case of Mansur v. Wendy’s, No. 240302951 (C.P. Phila. Co. July 28, 2026 Cohen, J.), the trial court issued a Rule 1925 Opinion outlining the reasons why its Order denying the Defendant’s Motion to Compel Arbitration should be affirmed by the Superior Court.

According to the Opinion, this wrongful death and survival action arose out of the fatal assault of the Plaintiff while working at a Wendy’s Restaurant. The assailant was a former co-employee.

After the Plaintiff’s estate filed suit, the Defendants participated extensively in the pleadings and in discovery efforts. Thereafter, sixteen (16) months into the litigation, the Defendants filed a Motion to Compel Arbitration.

After reviewing the record before it, the trial court denied the Motion, holding that the Defendant had waived its right to Arbitration by actively participating in the litigation proceedings. In this Rule 1925 Opinion, the trial court was requesting the Superior Court to affirm that decision.

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


Source: The Legal Intelligencer Weekly Case Alert, www.Law.com (Oct. 8, 2026).

Still Time To Register For CLE

 

On November 5, 2026, Daniel E. Cummins, Esq. of Cummins Law and Neil T. O'Donnell of O'Donnell Law will be presenting a CLE program entitled "2026 Civil Litigation Update With Practice Tips" at the Lackawanna County Bench Bar Conference set to take place at the Hilton Scranton Hotel and Conference Center.

Attendance at the Lackawanna County Bench Bar Conference is open to members of the Lackawanna Bar Association Conference and will be held in person.

Please consider registering to attend the upcoming November 5, 2026 Lackawanna County by utilizing this LINK.

Please also note that a version of this presentation may also be offered on Zoom through another sponsor in the near future. Details to follow.

Court Finds That Arbitration Clause Found on App Inconspicuous and, Therefore, Unenforceable

In the case of Oakley v. FloatMe Corp., No. 1318 WDA 2025 (Pa. Super. Oct. 1, 2026 King, J., Lane, J., and Panella, P.J.E.) (Op. by King, J.), the Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed a trial court’s rejection of a Defendant’s efforts to compel arbitration of this civil litigation matter.

According to the Opinion, FloatMe is a Texas-based technology company that makes loans or cash advances to Pennsylvania consumers over the internet.

This matter arose out of a Class Action matter. After suit was filed, the Defendant filed Preliminary Objections in the nature of a Motion to Compel Arbitration.

FloatMe asserted that the Plaintiffs were required to sign up via FloatMe’s App before she could obtain a cash advance. FloatMe asserted that the App prompts the user to answer several questions and request certain information. One of the prompts on the App provides that , by continuing with the application process, the applicant agrees to FloatMe’s terms of service and privacy policy.

FloatMe further maintained that the terms of service button is clickable and directs the user to an online format of the terms and condition. The company further asserted that, if a user clicks the phrase terms and conditions, those terms and conditions allegedly clearly indicate that the agreement contains an Arbitration provision and a Class Action waiver.

The Plaintiff asserted that the App’s lengthy sign up process included “at least 16 screens” for a consumer to navigate before they may obtain a case advance. The Plaintiff noted that, at no point in that process did FloatMe mention Arbitration or the waiver of any constitutional rights, such as the right to a jury trial.

The Plaintiffs asserted that this type of a sign up process is not sufficient to bind users to Arbitration or the waiver of any constitutional rights such as the right to a jury trial. 

The Pennsylvania Superior Court agreed and held that the FloatMe App did not conspicuously inform the Plaintiff of her rights.  Rather, the court found that the application process on the App allowed users to complete their registration without being fully informed of the rights that the applicant is waiving.

As such, the Superior Court held that there was no mutual assent and no valid agreement entered into with respect to Arbitration.

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

Source: The Pa. Super. Blog written by Jon Bruno of Bruno Litigation, LLC in Pittsburgh, PA.

Source of image:  Photo by Brett Jordan on www.unsplash.com.

Still Time To Register and Sponsor

 

Court Addresses AI Hallucinations in Filings By Pro Se Litigant

In the case of Coyne v. Smurl, No. 2025-CV-5844 (C.P. Lacka. Co. Sept. 25, 2026 Nealon, J.), the court issued a decision addressing Preliminary Objections filed in a matter involving the Sunshine Act.

Of note, on pgs. 8-10, and in footnote 4 of the Opinion, Judge Terrence R. Nealon of the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas points out that the pro se litigant in this case appeared to have relied upon generative artificial intelligence (“GenAI”) in creating its filings given that a number of the citations offered up to the court by the pro se litigant were not accurate.

The court noted that, under Pa. R.C.P. 1023.1(c)(2), as well as the local rules of court in Lackawanna County, the signature of an attorney or a self-representative party on a court filing constitutes a certification by that attorney or party that the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions set forth in the filing “are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for the extension, modification or reversal of existing law, or the establishment of new law.”

As such, the court noted that attorneys and pro se litigants have a duty to independently verify the accuracy of all citations generated by AI and the legitimacy of the holdings and the rationales that AI attributes to those identified cases before submitting any filings of record.


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

Source of image: Photo by Igor Omilaev on www.unsplash.com.

No-Duty Rule Applied to Football Related Head Injury Claims

In the case of Schretzman v. NCAA, Nol 2883 EDA 2024 (Pa. Super. Sept. 16, 2026 Lane, J.) (Op. by Lane, J.), the court applied the no-duty negligence rule under Pennsylvania law to a claim by a Plaintiff alleging injuries from repeated football-related head injuries.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff was a former member of the West Point College football team. He was diagnosed with ALS.

The Plaintiff sued the NCAA under an allegation that the NCAA allegedly failed to warn him of the risks associated with repeated football-related head injuries.

The Superior Court affirmed the trial court’s entry of the NCAA’s Motion for a Compulsory Nonsuit.

The Superior Court noted that it was “bound under Pennsylvania’s no-duty negligence rule to hold the NCAA did not owe a duty of care to warn college player that repeated head injuries, in the support of football, may cause, decades later, latent neurogenerative disease, including [ALS].”

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


Source: The Pa. Super. Blog by Jon Bruno of Bruno Litigation, LLC, in Pittsburgh, PA.

Opportunity To Advertise Your Firm Through Sponsorship (And Support a Great Cause)

 

Court Rules That Party Not Entitled to Unsealing of Juvenile Delinquency Records of a Witness

In the case of M.M., a minor v. Lion Tamer, LLC, No. 2025-CV-4113 (C.P. Lacka. Co. Sept. 18, 2026 Nealon, J.), the court addressed a Motion by the Defendant seeking to unseal the records relating to the juvenile delinquency proceedings involving a minor identified as “B.S.”

According to the Opinion, this case arose out of a premises liability incident. The Defendant operates an indoor trampoline park. The minor female Plaintiff, M.M., was allegedly lured into a foam pit by a 13 year old teenage boy during which the minor was allegedly sexually assaulted.

The court noted that the Plaintiff did not take any position on the Defendant’s Motion to Unseal Records regarding the juvenile delinquencies proceedings involving a minor identified as B.S.

In reviewing the Motion, the court referred to §6307(a) of the Juvenile Act. 42 Pa. C.S.A. §6307(a).

The court additionally also reviewed Rule 160(A) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Juvenile Court Procedure. Pa. R.J.C.P. 160(A).

The Defendant sought access to B.S.’s juvenile records as a party having a legitimate interest in the proceedings. In making the Motion, the Defendant conceded that it could not find any case law directly on point specifically involving a Defendant in a civil case seeking to have a juvenile criminal record unsealed. 

However, Judge Nealon uncovered relevant case law both at the appellate and trial court level. Based upon the case law found, Judge Nealon ruled that the Defendant could not be deemed a party “having a legitimate interest in the proceedings” under the above-referenced Rules as that language has been construed as referring to parties having a legitimate interest in the juvenile court proceedings.

Judge Nealon also noted that, while Subsection (b) of §6307 of the Juvenile Act was added after certain case law and permitted disclosure of limited information from juvenile delinquent proceedings for certain violent criminal conduct committed when the juvenile at issue was 14 years old or older, the individual in this case was only 13 at the time of the incident. As such, the court found that §6307(b) could not serve as a basis for unsealing the requested juvenile records.

Overall, the court in this case decided that based upon the limited record before it as submitted by the parties, the requested juvenile records of B.S. were protected from public access by the above-cited Rules. Accordingly, the Defendant’s Motion to Unseal the Juvenile Delinquency Documents was denied.

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

Summary Judgment Granted in Favor of Out-of-Possession Landlord

In the case of Bresnahan v. Indian Creek Health Care, Inc., No. 10535 of 2024, C.A. (C.P. Lawr. Co. July 31, 2026 Cox, P.J.), the court granted in part and denied in part a Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment in a premises liability case.

The Plaintiff filed suit alleging injuries as a result of a slip and fall on an alleged accumulation of liquid in a stairwell. Various Defendants affiliated with the property were sued.

Relative to the out-of-possession landlord, the court held that such a defendant could not be held liable without evidence that it retained control over the allegedly defective area.

With respect to one of that defendants, the court found that the Plaintiff failed to provide evidence that that defendant was involved in the control, maintenance, or repair of the premises. There was also no evidence established that that particular defendant had retained any control over the area where the Plaintiff allegedly fell.

A separate Motion for Summary Judgment filed by another defendant that was identified as the management company for the premises was denied.  The court found that sufficient evidence had been produced to support an inference that that defendant had control over the area of the premises in question.

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


Source: The Legal Intelligencer Common Pleas Case Alert, www.Law.com (Sept. 17, 2026).

Source of image:  Photo by Laura Cleffman on www.unsplash.com.

Looking to try to settle a trip or slip and fall case 

before the end of the year?

(570) 319-5899

dancummins@cumminslaw.net

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Upholds Statutory Cap on Tort Claims Against State

In the case Freilich v. SEPTA, No. 10 EAP 2024 (Pa. Oct. 1, 2026) (Op. by Todd, C.J.) (dissenting Op. by Donohue, J. and McCaffery, J.) (concurring Ops. by Dougherty, J. and Mundy, J.), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, in a 5-2 decision, rejected arguments that the $250,000.00 cap on awards for tort claims against the state were unconstitutional.

More specifically, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court rejected the argument that the state’s Sovereign Immunity Act enforcing the cap violated the constitutional right to a trial by a jury.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff was injured when a SEPTA bus ran over her foot as she was walking in a crosswalk in downtown Philadelphia.  

This case arose out of a personal injury litigation in which a stipulated jury verdict totaling $7million dollars had been entered. The Plaintiff also sought an additional $892,979.00 in delay damages against the Defendants. The trial court later granted a $250,000.00 settlement with SEPTA, consistent with the statutory cap. The Plaintiff’s retained their right to challenge the validity of the cap up the appellate ladder.

In coming to its decision, the Court reasoned that the statutory cap did not limit the availability or parameters of a trial by jury. Rather, the cap limited an injury party’s ultimate recovery.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court otherwise rejected arguments from the Plaintiff that the cap violated the state’s remedies clause under its constitution. The Supreme Court upheld the statute legislature’s power to determine how lawsuits can be brought against the state and, therefore, control the limits of liability damages.

As noted, the Supreme Court ultimately upheld the statutory cap as being a valid part of Pennsylvania personal injury law relative to governmental agency defendants.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of the Majority Opinion for this decision may click this LINK. 

The Concurring Opinion by Chief Justice Todd can be viewed HERE.

The Concurring Opinion by Justice Dougherty can be viewed HERE.

The Concurring Opinin by Justice Wecht can be viewed HERE.

The Dissenting Opinion by Justice Donohue can be viewed HERE.

Source: Article – “Pennsylvania Supreme Court Upholds $250K Cap On Tort Claims Against State” By Cameryn Oakes of The Legal Intelligencer Common Pleas Case Alert (Oct. 1, 2026).

Presenting Civil Litigation Update at Upcoming November 5, 2026 Lackawanna County Bench Bar Conference

On November 5, 2026, Daniel E. Cummins, Esq. of Cummins Law and Neil T. O'Donnell of O'Donnell Law will be presenting a CLE program entitled "2026 Civil Litigation Update With Practice Tips" at the Lackawanna County Bench Bar Conference set to take place at the Hilton Scranton Hotel and Conference Center.

Attendance at the Lackawanna County Bench Bar Conference is open to members of the Lackawanna Bar Association Conference and will be held in person.

Please consider registering to attend the upcoming November 5, 2026 Lackawanna County by utilizing this LINK.

Please also note that a version of this presentation may also be offered on Zoom through another sponsor in the near future. Details to follow.