Trial Court Order Transferring Case Under Doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens Affirmed [Non-Precedential]

In the case of Smith v. Beckman Coulter, Inc., No. 2313 EDA of 2021 (Pa. Super. June 6, 2023 King, J., Bowes, J. and Pellegrini, J) (Op. by King, J.)[Non-Precedential], the Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed the trial court’s granting of a Petition to Transfer a Case under the doctrine of forum non conveniens.

This case involved an asbestos suit that was filed over an alleged exposure to asbestos at an educational institution located in Cumberland County. The case was filed in Philadelphia County.

The Superior Court ruled that the trial court properly transferred the case from Philadelphia County to Cumberland County.

The court noted that the evidence before the court confirmed that the Plaintiff’s choice of venue was either vexatious or so oppressive as to require a transfer. In this case, the site of the claimed exposure asbestos was over 100 miles from Philadelphia.

Additionally, multiple Affidavits from witnesses were provided to the court in which those witnesses confirmed that a trial in Philadelphia would be oppressive and create a great hardship because of personal, family, and job-related responsibilities.

The court ruled that, given the distance involved, the decision to transfer venue was proper even without consideration of those Affidavits.

No explanation was given as to why the Opinion was listed as Non-Predecential.  If the Superior Court takes the time and effort to write an Opinion, why not simply publish it?  

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.

ARTICLE: A Primer on the Law of Liability of Homeowners' and Condominium Associations

Here is a LINK to an article of mine that was recently published in the July/August 2023 edition of the Pennsylvania Lawyer Magazine.  The article is entitled "A Primer on the Law of Liability of Homeowners' and Condominium Associations."

Given the dearth of case law and commentary on this area of the law, it is hoped that this article may provide background on how to approach liability matters involving homeowners and condominium associations and/or provide a jumpstart for any research you may have to complete on issues presented in this particular area of civil liability law.

I send thanks to the Pennsylvania Bar Association and to Patricia Graybill, the editor of the Pennsylvania Bar Association, for selecting this article for publication.

STILL TIME TO SPONSOR OR REGISTER FOR LACKAWANNA PRO BONO GOLF TOURNAMENT

 

U.S. Supreme Court Reverses Pennsylvania Supreme Court and Upholds Pennsylvania Law Conferring Jurisdiction on Corporations Who Register To Do Business in PA

In the case of Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co, ___ U.S.___ (June 27, 2023) in a 4-1-4 plurality decision, the United States Supreme Court upheld the Pennsylvania law allowing state courts to hear lawsuits against out-of-state companies who had registered to conduct business in Pennsylvania, even when the alleged injury occurred outside of the Pennsylvania.  

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

Georgia Judge Vacates a Plaintiff's $1.5 Million Dollar Jury Verdict In Connection With Plaintiff's Attorney's Social Media Posts

Here is a LINK to an article that was published on Law.com on June 30, 2023 outlining a Georgia trial court's vacation of a $1.5 million dollar jury verdict in favor of a personal injury plaintiff due to the plaintiff's attorney's social media posts.

Makes for an interesting read of a cautionary and expensive tale.

(If you are not able to access the article at the Link provided, please let me know at dancummins@CumminsLaw.net and I will email you a copy.

I send thanks to Richard T. Henderson, Senior Vice President of TransRe for bringing this article to my attention.

Summary Judgment Granted Based on Hills and Ridges Doctrine

In the case of Irvin v. Wegmans Food Market, Inc., No. CV-21-00360 (C.P. Lyc. Co. April 11, 2023 Lindhardt, J.), the court granted a Defendant store’s Motion for Summary Judgment in a slip and fall case.

The court’s decision in this matter was based, in part, on the hills and ridges doctrine.

After reviewing the elements of the hills and ridges doctrine, the court found that certified weather records and video footage established the general wintry conditions that existed at the Plaintiff’s location at the time of the incident.

The court rejected the Plaintiff’s argument that the precise location of the Plaintiff’s heel at the time of the incident was a material issue in determining liability in this case.  The court noted that the evidence showed the the Plaintiff's lead foot as he was walking was in the area of the alleged wintry conditions at the time he fell.

Overall, the court found that the Plaintiff failed to produce evidence to get beyond the hills and ridges doctrine.

As such, summary judgment was entered in favor of the store.

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


Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (June 6, 2023).

Walking Over a Snow Covered Grassy Area is Deemed the Taking of an Open and Obvious Risk as a Matter of Law

In the case of Hinerman v. Westmoreland County Airport Auth., No. 732 C.D. 2022 (Pa. Cmwlth. June 15, 2023 Ceisler, J., Covey, J., and Leavitt, J.) (Op. by Ceisler, J.), the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court affirmed the entry of summary judgment in a slip and fall case.

In this matter, the Plaintiff, instead of using a paved walkway or the driveway, both of which were cleared, chose to instead walk across a snow covered grassy area where the Plaintiff then fell.  The Plaintiff thereafter brought suit against the Defendant.

The court ruled than snowy area that the Plaintiff chose to walk over was an open and obvious danger. The court noted that the uncertainties inherent in walking on snow covered ground are obvious as a matter of law. The Court found that, by taking a short cut across the snow covered ground, the Plaintiff accepted the risk that the underlying ground would be less suitable for walking.

The court reiterated the general rule that landowners do not have a duty to remove any and all dangers from any and all parts of their premises involving winter conditions.

As stated, the trial court's entry of summary judgment was affirmed.    

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 Eberhard Grossgasteiger on www.unsplash.com.