Lackawanna Bar Association Holiday CLE

LACKAWANNA BAR ASSOCIATION

and 

TORT TALK

Present another One Hour ZOOM CLE

Friday, November 13, 2020 at Noon

ENJOYING THE HOLIDAYS WITH TORT TALK:

A Holiday Themed Civil Litigation Update

(1 Substantive CLE Credit)

Presented By

Daniel E. Cummins, Esquire

of

Cummins Law

Clarks Summit, PA

Free for LBA Members; Fee for Non-members: $60.00
(All fees go to the Bar Association)

Registration Limited to First 100 persons to Register

Registrants Will Be Able to Access the Tort Talk 2020 Civil Litigation Update Booklet on the Bar's website.

Contact Kaitlin McDonough at kmcdonough@lackawannabar.org to register whether you are a member or a non-member. 

Payment by non-members due on registration.  After contacting Kaitlin McDonough to register, Non-members are requested to go to www.lackawannabar.org and clicking on the “Payments” button at the top of the website.

Technical Support Provided by:

CLE SPONSORED BY:

Sufficient Foundation Established for Lay Opinion Testimony on Speed

In the case of Loomis v. Bomba, No. 18-CV-930 (C.P. Lacka. Co. Oct. 2, 2020 Nealon, J.), the court addressed Motions In Limine filed by a Defendant boat operator and owners in a wrongful death litigation arising from a boating fatality. 

The Defendants sought to preclude the boat passenger from offering any lay opinion testimony of the speed of the boat. 

The court ruled that, based upon the records submitted, the passenger at issue had a sufficient opportunity to observe the boat’s movement and also had adequate experience with moving boats so as to be competent to provide a numerical estimate as to the boat’s speed under Pa. R.E. 701. 

As such, the motion by the Defendants to preclude the passenger’s lay opinion testimony regarding speed was denied. 

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

PLEASE SAVE THE DATES FOR THESE UPCOMING CLEs by DANIEL E. CUMMINS

I have been asked by the Bar Associations in Luzerne County, Lackawanna County, and Monroe County to present a year-end civil litigation update CLE via Zoom.

I have developed a one hour Holiday themed presentation in which I will utilize holiday related video clips in an effort to make the presentation more entertaining so that your CLE hour goes by quickly and painlessly.

The below presentation is open to members of those Bar Associations as well as to non-members (with non-members being asked to pay a small fee, all of which goes to that Bar Association).

These Zoom seminars will take place on the following dates:

Luzerne County - November 5, 2020 (As part of the Bench-Bar Conference)(Time TBD)

Lackawanna County - November 13, 2020 at Noon

Monroe County - December 8, 2020 at Noon

Details on how to register to follow shortly.  In the meantime, please save the dates.

ENJOYING THE HOLIDAYS WITH TORT TALK:

A Holiday Themed Civil Litigation Update

(1 Substantive CLE Credit)

Presented By

Daniel E. Cummins, Esquire

of

Cummins Law

Clarks Summit, PA

Technical Support Provided by:

Bring Your Case To a Close Before the End of the Year with:

(570) 319-5899

dancummins@CumminsLaw.net

Please Support Lackawanna Pro Bono

 

Defendant's Reliance Upon Gist of the Action Doctrine Rejected

In the case of Weigold v. Ford Motor Company, No. 20-2141 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 1, 2020 Savage, J.), the court rejected an effort on the part of the Defendant to have part of a Plaintiff’s tort claims dismissed under the gist of the action doctrine.

The court ruled that the tort claims used against a vehicle seller for negligence and strict liability surrounding claims of improper installation, inspection, and servicing of the vehicles was electrical system, along with allegations of the sale of a defective vehicle, were found to be claims that rested upon socially based duties imposed upon manufacturers not to sell dangerous or defective products.

As such, the court found that these types of claims were not duplicative of any possible contract claims. Accordingly, the defense's reliance upon the gist of the action doctrine was dismissed.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.  The Court's 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.

Grounds for Removal of Case to Federal Court Can be Triggered by Plaintiff's Case Management Memorandum

In the case of Sultan v. AIG Cas. Ins., No. 20-935 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 10, 2020 Schiller, J.), the court denied a Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand her action against an insurance company. 

In ruling on the issues before it, including the timing of the removal to federal court in the first place, the court found that a Plaintiff’s pre-Complaint demand did not start the runnning the thirty (30) day clock for filing a Notice of Removal. The court noted that pre-Complaint communications between counsel did not qualify as a document from which it could be ascertained by the defense that the case is one which was removable. The court noted that such documents that pre-date the filing of an initial pleading cannot serve this purpose. 

The court in this decision also established that there may be cases where even the content of the Complaint does not put the Defendant on notice of a possibility for removal.  Rather, the court found in this case that the Defendant was not placed on notice that the amount in controversy was sufficient for removal until the Plaintiff had filed her Case Management Conference Memorandum in which a demand for over $1.2 million dollars was stated. 

The court noted that the Plaintiff's initial pleading was not removable because the amount in controversary was not met within that pleading. However, once the Plaintiff identified the demand in the Case Management filing, the defense could properly remove the case within thirty (30) days of receiving that document. 

Given that the court found that the removal was timely since it was filed within thirty (30) days of receipt of “other paper from which it may be ascertained that the case is one which is or has become removable,” the court denied the Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand. 

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


Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Aug. 25, 2020).

Eddie Van Halen Eased the Seat Back and Went to Heaven

Eddie Van Halen eased the seat back and went to Heaven yesterday -- and took a part of the 80s with him.  Air guitarists across the globe are mourning his loss.

R.I.P.

Some Tort Talkers may recall that Eddie Van Halen made an appearance here on Tort Talk back in 2013.  Here is the LINK to that Tort Talk post.