Federal Court Rejects Complaint Containing Shotgun Pleading Against All Defendants

In the case of Comer v. American Transmission Systems, Inc., No. 23-1464 (W.D. Pa. May 29, 2025 Hardy, J.), the court granted a Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss where the Plaintiff engaged in improper shotgun pleading in a Complaint.

In this matter, the Complaint contained multiple counts that each adopted all of the allegations of all preceding Counts.  The Complaint also asserted multiple claims against multiple Defendants without specifying which of the Defendants were more specifically responsible for which alleged acts or omissions. The court found that the Complaint did not allow for an understanding as to which claims were brought against which of the Defendants.

In its decision, the court separately reaffirmed the Pennsylvania law that holds that a Defendant hiring an independent contractor is not liable for the injuries sustained by that independent contractor’s employees from conditions that were equally obvious to the independent contractor and its employees.

Here, on the liability issues pled, the court found that the allegations in the Complaint did not establish any superior knowledge on the part of the Defendant at issue, any peculiar risk, or any retained control. Rather, the court found the allegations to be legal conclusion not supported by any specific facts.

Lastly, the court affirmed the general rule of law that, given that the Plaintiff’s estate had obtained a worker’s compensation recovery, the estate was not permitted to sue the decedent’s employer in tort.

The court did allow the Plaintiff an opportunity to file a more specific Amended Complaint.

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 Wesley Tingey on www.unsplash.com.

Court Addresses Retained Control Doctrine in Workplace Accident Case

In the case of Covanta v. D’Amico, Nov. Term 2019, No. 01334 (C.P. Phila. Co. June 22, 2023 Bright, J.), a trial court issued a Rule 1925 Opinion regarding its denial of post-trial motions in a third party liability case arising out of a workplace accident.

Of note, among the sixteen (16) claims of error addressed by the trial court were issues regarding whether a landowner Defendant who engages an independent contractor to perform work on the landowner’s property is liable for injuries to the independent contractor’s employees. In this regard, the trial court reviewed the doctrine of retained control.

After reviewing the record before it, the court found that the evidence established that the landowner did indeed regain control over the project which resulted in the Plaintiff’s injuries. In this regard, the court pointed to the landowner’s long-term history of control over the contractor’s various projects, the terms of the contract with the contractor, and the events involved in the subject incident.

The court pointed to the Restatement (Second) of Torts relative to the retained control exception to non-liability of a landowner who engages an independent contractor who has an employee injured on the job.

Under the retained control exception, one who entrusts work to an independent contractor, but who retains control of any part of the work, remains subject to potential liability for physical harm to others for whose safety the employer owes a duty to exercise reasonable care, which is caused by his failure to exercise his control with reasonable care. 

 The court noted that the central issue to be determined in this regard is whether the employer/landowner retained control of the means and the methods of the work to be completed. In other words, did the employer/landowner successfully delegate the duty to the independent contractor to complete the entire job, or did the employer/landowner retain certain authority over the job.

As noted, the trial court had denied post-trial motions in this case.  

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


Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Nov. 29, 2023).

Summary Judgment Denied in Lackawanna Slip and Fall Case

In his recent decision in the case of Santiago v. Wegmans Food Markets, Inc., No. 16-CV-1529 (C.P. Lacka. Co. Feb. 2, 2018 Nealon, J.), Judge Terrence R. Nealon of the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas denied a property owner’s Motion for Summary Judgment in a slip and fall action.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff was an employee of an independent contractor that was retained by the property owner to provide janitorial services.   The Plaintiff was allegedly injured in a slip and fall event on the premises.  

The Defendant-owner filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on the basis that it allegedly owned no duty of care to the employee of the independent contractor.  The landowner Defendant argued that a landowner who retains an independent contractor cannot be vicariously liable for the negligence of an independent contractor or its employees.  

However, Judge Nealon denied the Motion for Summary Judgment under the “retained control” exception to that theory of non-liability.  Under the exception, a property owner who entrusts work to an independent contractor remains subject to liability if its contract with the independent contractor grants the landowner control over the manner, method, and operative details of the independent contractor’s work.  

Judge Nealon found that there were issues of fact in this regard that required the court to deny the Motion for Summary Judgment filed.  

Anyone wishing to read this Opinion may click this LINK.