Non-Settling Defendants Precluded From Referencing Joint Tortfeasor Settlement with Another Med Mal Defendant

In the case of Snyder v. North American Partners in Anesthesia, No. 19-CV-83 (C.P. Lacka. Co. Nov. 12, 2021 Nealon, J.), the court granted a Plaintiff’s Motion In Limine in a medical malpractice case and precluded a non-settling Defendant and an Additional Defendant from referencing a joint tortfeasor settlement that the Plaintiff had entered into with a non-party.  The Court also precluded any reference to the Plaintiffs’ previous assertion of a malpractice claim against that former party.

The court noted that the former Defendant, who had secured a joint tortfeasor settlement had previously secured a Discontinuance relative to this action and a removal as a named Defendant.

In so ruling, the court referred to 42 Pa. C.S.A. §6141(c) which provides that, “[e]xcept in an action in which final settlement and release has been pleaded as a complete defense, any settlement or payment…shall not be admissible in evidence on the trial of any matter.” 

Judge Nealon noted that, based upon the plain language of this provision, evidence of any prior settlements is inadmissible at any trial on any matter.

The court additionally noted that Pennsylvania Rule of Evidence 408(a)(1) similarly prohibited the admissibility or use of any offer or acceptance of valuable consideration in compromising or attempting to compromise a claim. The court noted that, under the comment of that Rule of Evidence, it is indicated that “Pa.R.E. 408 is consistent with 42 Pa.C.S. §6141 in excluding any evidence of a joint tortfeasor settlement.”

On the basis of this law, the court granted the Plaintiff’s Motion In Limine.

The court additionally granted the Plaintiff’s Motion seeking to prohibit the non-settling Defendants from mentioning the fact that the Plaintiff’s originally asserted a malpractice claim against the settling Defendant. In this regard, the court made a distinction between factual allegations, which could be deemed to be judicial admissions, and allegations of legal conclusions, which could not be deemed to be judicial admissions.

As such, the court noted that certain factual allegations regarding specific documentation created by the relevant medical witnesses and parties may be offered as judicial admissions but any allegations by the Plaintiffs concerning the causal negligence by the settling Defendant or its agents would not be allowed to be introduced into evidence.

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

Product Manufacturer and Med Mal Defendants Found Not to be Joint Tortfeasors

In the case of Bachtell v. General Mills, Inc., No. 1:18-CV-02292 (M.D. Pa. Aug. 25, 2020 Rambo, J.), the court held that a manufacturer of an allegedly defective product may not join the Plaintiff’s treating physician in the case on a third-party contribution claim predicated on medical malpractice allegations.

The court noted that a tortfeasor that originally caused an injury and a physician who subsequently aggravates or causes a new injury are not considered to be joint tortfeasors under the law. In so ruling, the court stated that Pennsylvania does not follow the Restatement (Second) of Torts §457 (1965). 

Judge Rambo otherwise indicated that medical malpractice claims and products liability claims in this matter involved different duties and distinct evidence. 

Significantly, the court found that the Plaintiff did not allege that the manufacturer was liable for any of the harm that was allegedly only caused by the subsequent medical malpractice. 

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.  Judge Rambo's companion Order can be viewed HERE.


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.

Law Applicable to Chain Reaction Car Accidents Reviewed

In the motor vehicle accident case of Jaurez v. Friess, No. 13-145 (W.D. Pa. Feb. 3, 2016 Conti, J.), the West District Federal Court denied summary judgment in a chain reaction motor vehicle accident case. 

In so ruling, the court reviewed the law pertaining to joint tortfeasors as well as the law of causation. 

Applying the law to the case before it, the court in Jaurez stated that, in a multi-vehicle collision, liability can still potentially be found on all involved, including with respect to vehicles that did not collide with each other under their own power, but rather, were pushed into one another.   Stated otherwise, the court ruled that it cannot be said, as a matter of law, that just because two vehicles did not collide with one another under their own power, that those operators were not liable.  The court noted that the causal negligence of those operators may be inferred from those motorists bringing their vehicles too close to one after which a third party to smash them together.  

Based upon these issues presented by the facts before the court, summary judgment in favor of certain defendants was denied.

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 Reed Smith Law Firm.   Please be sure to check out Attorney Beck’s excellent blog, the Drug and Device Law Blog (Click HERE to check out Attorney Beck's blog).