Post-Trial Rulings By Trial Court in MVA Case Affirmed on Appeal

In their non-precedential decision in the case of Major v. Five Star Equipment, Inc., No. 735 MDA 2025 (Pa. Super. June 30, 2026 Panella, P.J.E., King, J., and Lane, J.) (Mem. Op. by King, J.), the Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed the post-trial rulings issued by Judge Terrence R. Nealon of the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas related to a motor vehicle versus pedestrian accident case.

According to the Opinion, at a bifurcated trial, the jury attributed 75% of the responsibility for the happening of the accident to the Plaintiff and 25% to the Defendant.

On appeal, the Plaintiff challenged portions of the verdict slip and related jury instructions. The Plaintiff also asserted that the trial court had erred prior to trial in granting partial summary judgment on behalf of the Defendant and dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim for recklessness and in excluding post-accident evidence regarding the Defendant driver’s competence. The Plaintiff also argued that the trial court abused its discretion in bifurcating the trial.

Here, the court had bifurcated the trial based upon the fact that, after the parties were given a trial date with a certain number of trial days based on what the parties had advised the Court as to how much trial time was needed, the parties listed additional witnesses which led the court to conclude that it was highly unlikely that the parties would finish the trial within the allocated time period requested. As such, the court bifurcated the trial to avoid unnecessary cost and to facilitate the interests of judicial economy. The trial was bifurcated into liability and damages phases.

The appellate court rejected the Plaintiff’s argument that they were entitled to a new trial on the basis that the trial court had incorrectly bifurcated the case. The appellate court emphasized that the decision whether or not to bifurcate a case is entrusted to the broad discretion of the trial court, which is considered to be in the best position to evaluate the necessity for bifurcation.

Here, after consultation with the parties, the trial court had scheduled five (5) days for trial based upon the parties estimation as to the amount of time they believed the trial would take. Later, at a pre-trial conference, the parties then indicated that they intended to call eleven (11) lay witnesses and nine (9) expert witnesses to testify. The parties further estimated that one of the four days scheduled for trial would be taken up by the jury selection process, the court’s introductory instructions, and counsel’s opening statements.

The trial court had determined that it was highly unlikely that the remaining four (4) days of trial would be sufficient time for all of their testimony, closing arguments, jury instructions and deliberations. The trial court had expressed a concern that it would be forced to declare a mistrial if the trial is not completed within the allotted time. The appellate court agreed with the trial court’s conclusion that the interest of judicial economy and conveniens supported the bifurcation of the case. The appellate court was not swayed by the Plaintiff’s argument that the trial actually ended up only taking three (3) days to complete.

On appeal, the appellate court otherwise agreed with the trial court that the Plaintiff had waived her claim of error with regards to the Verdict slip.  The appellate court otherwise agreed with the trial court that separate questions as to each theory of negligence asserted against the Defendant company were unnecessary given that the trial court’s jury instructions specified and explained all of the theories of negligence involved in the case. The appellate court found that the trial court had repeatedly instructed the jury that, if they found negligence on any of the grounds described during the jury instructions, the jury must find that the Defendant company was negligent.

With regards to the trial court having issued a partial summary judgment against the Plaintiff’s claims of recklessness, the appellate court reviewed the law of punitive damages and, after a review of the trial record, found that the Plaintiff failed to produce any evidence to support the claims of recklessness. As such, the appellate court stated that the trial court did not err in dismissing the Plaintiff’s punitive damages claims whether in terms of the direct actions of the Defendant company or on the basis of vicarious liability.

Based upon the above reasons, the appellate court affirmed all of the trial court’s post-trial rulings.

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

To view the Tort Talk post on Judge Nealon's trial court Opinion and for access to a Link to that Opinion, please click HERE.

Superior Court Addresses Issues Raised With Respect to Verdict Slip in Med Mal Case

In the case of Hagans v. Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, No. 536 EDA 2024 (Pa. Super. July 10, 2025 Stabile, J., McLaughlin, J., and Lane, J.) (Op. by McLaughlin, J.), the Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed the trial court’s rulings relative to a medical malpractice action. The appellate court upheld the trial court’s denial of the medical Defendant’s Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict, relative to certain evidentiary rulings, and also upheld the trial court’s rulings related to the Verdict Slip.

This action arose out of alleged medical malpractice related to the birth of the Plaintiff’s child.

Of note, the Superior Court upheld the verdict in favor of the Plaintiffs in this action where the jury’s Verdict Slip demonstrated that it found at least one individual medical provider liable and where the Defendants consistently acknowledged that all providers worked together as a single care team relative to the treatment provided.

The hospital Defendant argued that the Verdict Slip should have been required to ask the jury to evaluate the negligence of each individual Defendant. The defense argued that the Plaintiff bore the burden of proof as to whether each Defendant’s conduct fell below the standard of care. The trial court rejected the hospital’s arguments and affirmed the judgment during post-trial proceeds.

On appeal, the appellate court noted that the review of the Verdict Slip confirmed that the jury found at least one individual Defendant liable for the harm such that there was sufficient evidence to establish the hospital Defendant’s vicarious liability.

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


Source: The Legal Intelligencer State Appellate Case Alert, www.Law.com (July 31, 2025).

Trial Court Judge Addresses Post-Trial Issues Including Issues With Verdict Slip and With Bifurcation of Trial

In the case of Major v. Five Star Equipment, Inc., No. 2020-CV-3550 (C.P. Lacka. Co. May 9, 2025 Nealon, J.), the court addressed several post-trial issues after a defense verdict in a case involving a pedestrian who was hit by a motor vehicle.

Of note, the court addressed various issues raised with regards to the content of the Verdict Slip and factual cause questions, as well as with respect to the bifurcation of the liability and damages phases of the trial.

After providing a thorough review of the applicable law, Judge Terrence R. Nealon of the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas ruled that there were no errors with regards to the content of the Verdict Slip and the various questions presented to the jury on that slip.

The court otherwise noted that the bifurcation of the trial was warranted under the circumstances presented in the case, including the fact that counsel had underestimated the number of days it would take to try the case during the pre-trial proceedings.

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


Source: “The Legal Intelligencer Weekly Case Alert” on www.Law.com (June 4, 2025).

Superior Court Upholds Defense Verdict Reached By Jury After 14 Minutes in Med Mal Case

In the case of Corey v. Wilkes-Barre Hospital Co., LLC, No. 507 MDA 2021 (Pa. Super. Dec. 11, 2023 en banc) (Op. by King, J.) (Olson, J. Concurring) (Kunselman, J. Dissenting), the Pennsylvania Superior Court addressed numerous issues in a medical malpractice claim in which a nonsuit, in part, had been granted and in which issues were raised with regard to the verdict slip and the short length of time that the jury deliberated before announcing its defense verdict.

With respect to the Plaintiff’s post-trial challenges in regards to the identity of the parties on the verdict slip, it was noted that the trial court had confirmed that Plaintiff’s counsel failed to object to the verdict slip when the trial court had provided an opportunity to the attorneys, immediately prior to the slip being provided to the jurors, to note any objections. The trial court had indicated that, when asked if counsel was satisfied with the verdict slip, Plaintiff’s counsel answered in the affirmative.

On appeal, the Plaintiff had also complained that the jury returned a verdict within only fourteen (14) minutes after the case had been given to the jury for a decision. The Plaintiff argued that the Plaintiff did not believe that the short conference by the jury resulting the verdict should had been considered “deliberations.”

The appellate court disagreed and rejected the Plaintiff’s request that the case be remanded to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether an improper outside influence, or other misconduct, influenced the jury’s deliberation. The appellate court found that the trial court had correctly determined that the Plaintiff failed to offer any good reason to justify further inquiry into the validity of the verdict.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.  The Concurring Opinion by Judge Olson can be viewed HERE.  The Dissenting Opinion by Judge Kunselman can be viewed HERE.


Source: Article – “Rejecting Verdict Slip and Jury Deliberation Challenges, Superior Court Affirms Nonsuit for Northeast PA Hospital” By Riley Brennan of the Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Dec. 12, 2023).

Judge Nealon of Lackawanna County Rejects Request to Have Settled Defendants on Verdict Slip

In the case of Williams v. Glenmaura Senior Living at Montage, LLC, No. 21-CV-1494 (C.P. Lacka. Co. Nov. 7, 2022 Nealon, J.), the court addressed a motion by certain Defendants in a medical malpractice case for reconsideration of the court’s previous Order granting certain settling Defendants’ Motion for Discontinuance from the case by virtue of the settling Defendants’ Joint Tortfeasor Agreements.

One of the non-settling Defendants wished to keep the settling Defendants in the case for purposes of the trial.

Judge Terrence R. Nealon
Lackawanna County

In his Opinion, Judge Terrence R. Nealon of the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas confirmed that, in Pennsylvania, there is no absolute right to have settling Co-Defendants placed on a verdict slip.

Rather, under the applicable standard of review, the trial court is required to determine whether any evidence of a settling Co-Defendant’s liability exists before deciding whether to put that Co-Defendant on the verdict slip.

In terms of a medical malpractice action, Judge Nealon noted that expert testimony is required to establish the elements of a duty, breach, and causation and that, if expert testimony will not be presented at trial to establish a settling Defendant’s potential liability, then that settling Defendant should not be included on the verdict slip.

Judge Nealon noted that he had previously granted the voluntary Discontinuance of the settling Defendants in this matter in the absence of admissible expert testimony against those Defendants. The court also noted that any efforts by the Plaintiff to introduce expert testimony on the standard of care and causation would amount to hearsay in this case.

As such, the court found that it had previously properly granted the settling Defendants’ Motions for Discontinuance. The Motion for Reconsideration at issue here was, therefore, also denied.

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