Summary Judgment Granted In Favor of Restaurant in Foodborne Illness Claim Due to Lack of Expert for Plaintiff

In the case of Lawrence v. Texas Roadhouse Holdings, LLC, No. CI-23-00720 (C.P. Lanc. Co. May 22, 2025 Brown, P.J.), the court granted the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment in a case where the Plaintiff alleged that he contracted a foodborne illness after eating at a Texas Roadhouse restaurant in Lancaster County.

The court noted that, while medical tests completed on the Plaintiff after his visit to the restaurant raised the possibility of E. coli colitis, the record revealed that the Plaintiff was never definitively diagnosed with E. coli. The court also noted that the Plaintiff’s discharge diagnosis from his initial medical visit was for acute gastroenteritis, rather than any specific foodborne illness. It was also indicated that no stool sample was taken that could have been analyzed to definitively identify any foodborne illness.

In granting summary judgment in this matter, the court emphasized that the Plaintiff did not present any competent expert medical evidence to establish a causal link between the Plaintiff's consumption of food at the restaurant and his alleged illness.

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

I send thanks to Attorney Jennifer G. Shorr of the Philadelphia office of the Weber Gallagher law firm for bringing this case to my attention.

Link To Decision Corrected for Yesterday's Post: Court Rules that Plaintiff Can't Wing It In Terms of Expert Testimony

The Link to the court decision in yesterday's post has been fixed.  Sorry about that error.  You can view yesterday's Tort Talk post here at this LINK and click the corrected Link to the case therein.

Thanks for reading Tort Talk.

Court Rules That Plaintiff Can't Wing It In Terms of Expert Testimony

In the case of Boruch v. Catty Corner Neighborhood Pub & Pie, 2025 Pa. D. & C. Dec. Lexis 6 (C.P. Leh. Co. Jan. 2, 2025 Reichley, J.), the court granted summary judgment in an alleged food poisoning case involving Buffalo Wings.

In this case, the court noted that the Plaintiff’s expert’s report only addressed the fact of the happening of the alleged food poisoning and did not contain a causation opinion linking the Plaintiff’s illness to the Plaintiff’s consuming the Defendant’s food.

The court recognized that, absent an obvious causal relationship, a personal injury Plaintiff must have expert testimony to establish causation. 

The court generally agreed that such an obvious relationship can arise from an immediate and direct injury or as a natural probable result following alleged negligence.

However, the court found that becoming ill several hours after consuming food is not such a relationship of cause and effect as noted above. Here, the court noted that the causal connection would require guesswork and/or conjecture on the part of a jury.

Given the failures of the Plaintiff’s expert report, summary judgment was granted.

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


I send thanks to Attorney James M. Beck of the Philadelphia office of the Reed Smith law firm for bringing this case to my attention.

Source of image:  Photo by Sergio Arreola on www.pexels.com.

Court Rejects Argument That Motion For Summary Judgment Is Premature Where Ample Time For Discovery Had Passed

In the case of Connell v. Zheng, No. 1696 of 2017 G.D. (C.P. Fay. Co. Aug. 15, 2022 Cordaro, J.), the court addressed a summary judgment motion in a food poisoning case filed against a Chinese restaurant.

According to the Opinion, the case involved the death of the Plaintiff’s decedent from complications of an infection caused by a bacteria typically found in shell fish that can be transmitted to humans through consumption of raw or undercooked shell fish. The Plaintiff was suing a Chinese restaurant and others involved for the injuries claimed.

The Motion for Summary Judgment at issue in this case was filed by an Additional Defendant relative to claims asserted by an original Defendant in a Joinder Complaint.

Of note, the original Defendants opposed the motion, in part, on the basis that discovery was still ongoing and that the Motion for Summary Judgment was, therefore, premature.

The court noted that, while an adverse party must be given adequate time to develop the case and that a Motion for Summary Judgment will be found to be premature if filed before the adverse party has completed discovery relevant to the motion in question, “the discovery period cannot extend indefinitely; parties must conduct discovery in a timely way and proceed with due diligence.”  See Op. at XI. [citations omitted].

Referring to the local rules of court, the judge in this matter ruled that ample time had been provided for the completion of relevant discovery. It was also noted that no party had moved for any different deadlines for the completion of discovery. It was additionally indicated by the court that the party opposing the Motion for Summary Judgment had not moved to compel any discovery.

As such, the court found that the parties did have adequate time to prepare and pursue relevant discovery. As such, the court deemed that discovery was complete relative to the motion in question.

In the end, the court found that the Defendants had not brought forward any evidence to support the facts essential to their cause of action against the Additional Defendants. As such, the court entered summary judgment in favor of the Additional Defendant.

Also notable in this decision is the court’s indication that non-binding case law can certainly be considered for its persuasive value.

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

Source: “Case Summaries.” By Timothy L. Clawges PBA News (December 2022).

Source of image:  Photo by Drew Taylor on www.pexels.com.