Court Addresses Statute of Limitations Under Federal Employers' Liability Act

In the case of Loomis v. Delaware and Hudson Railway Co., Inc., No. 17-CV-5421 (C.P. Lacka. Co. May 12, 2022 Nealon, J.), the court denied a Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment based, in part, on the three (3) year statute of limitations under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (“FELA”).

In this matter, the Plaintiff filed suit under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act alleging that her husband contracted cancer and later died from continuous exposure to toxic substances during his railroad employment and due to the railroad employer’s failure to provide a reasonably safe work environment.

According to the record before the court, the decedent was first diagnosed with cancer in 2007 and later died in 2014.

In response to the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment on the statute of limitations issues, the court found that neither the decedent nor his widow was ever advised by any healthcare professional, railroad representative, or any other person that the cancer was possibly related to the decedent’s railroad work or his exposure to toxic substances. Rather, the evidence indicated that a potential causal connection between the decedent’s cancer and his job was first mentioned to the widow by a co-worker of the decedent in the same year that she commenced a lawsuit.

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

Source of image:  Photo by Tom Barrett on www.unsplash.com.

Preliminary Objections to Allegations of Recklessness Overruled in Montgomery County

In the case of Patton v. Greco, No. 2021-CV-14422 (C.P. Montg. Co. March 16, 2022 Haaz, J.), in an Order only, the court overruled a Defendant’s Preliminary Objections to allegations of recklessness and claims for punitive damages in a personal injury matter.

The court noted that, after discovery has been completed, the Defendants may again challenge whether the facts gathered n discovery supported claims for recklessness and punitive damages.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision, which is by Order only, may click this LINK.


I send thanks to Attorney Thomas J. Newell of Newell Law in Bethlehem, PA for bringing this decision to my attention.

Summary Judgment Granted in Slip and Fall Case Where Plaintiff Fell on Grass and While It Was Still Snowing

In the case of Mertira v. Camelback Lodge & Indoor Waterpark, No. 2031-Civil-2021 (C.P. Monroe Co. March 30, 2022 Williamson, J.), the court granted the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment in a winter slip and fall case.

In this matter, the Plaintiff alleged that the Defendants were negligent in allowing ice and snow to remain on their property, which allegedly caused the Plaintiff to slip and fall and become injured.

Of note, the court stated that the record confirmed that there was no dispute between the parties that freezing rain and/or snow was falling as the Plaintiff entered the premises, while the Plaintiff and her family dined within the premises, and for several hours even after the Plaintiff fell.

The court also noted that, as the Plaintiff and her family left the restaurant, they chose to walk on a grassy strip and not on a sidewalk or parking lot surface.

After applying the hills and ridges doctrine, the court stated that none of the Plaintiffs or the witnesses identified any hill or ridge formed by ice or snow. The court also reiterated that it was precipitating the entire time that the Plaintiff was on the premises, including several hours after she fell.

The court also emphasized the rule of law that a property owner has no obligation to correct snow and ice conditions until a reasonable time after a winter storm has ended.

The court additionally noted that there is no duty on a property owner to clear snow or ice from grassy areas as they are not intended to be traversed by pedestrians.

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


Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (May 18, 2022).

Source of image:  Photo by Craig Whitehead on www.unsplash.com.

Summary Judgment Denied for Issues of Fact In Wal-Mart Trip and Fall Case

In the case of Noga v. Wal-Mart Stores East, L.P., No. 10170 of 2019, C.A. (C.P. Lawr. Co. March 24, 2022 Hodge, J.), the court denied a Defendant store’s Motion for Summary Judgment in a trip and fall case.

The Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment asserting that Plaintiff was speculating as to the cause of the Plaintiff’s fall in that the Plaintiff had allegedly not provided any evidence that any alleged defect in the sidewalk was the cause of her fall.

The court found that the Defendant was not entitled to summary judgment as there was sufficient evidence in the records, including a store manager’s deposition testimony regarding an alleged crack in the sidewalk where the Plaintiff fell, for a jury to conclude that the crack in the pavement was the cause of the Plaintiff’s fall.

As such, the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment was denied.

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


Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (May 10, 2022).

Pennsylvania Superior Court Upholds Trial Court's Denial of a Defendant's Petition to Open a Default Judgment After Entry of $23 Million Dollar Verdict

In the case of Roy v. Rue, No. 1598 EDA 2021 (Pa. Super. April 12, 2022 Lazarus, J., Kunselman, J., and Stevens, P.J.E.) (Op. by Stevens, P.J.E.), the Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed a trial court’s denial of a Defendant’s Petition to Open and Strike a Default Judgment entered against him by the Plaintiff.

This lawsuit arose out of a fight that occurred at a restaurant that resulted in eventually fatal injuries to the Plaintiff’s decedent. The Plaintiff filed suit against a restaurant and the assailant. The issues in this case pertain to the entry of a default judgment against the assailant.

The restaurant defendant settled out of the case.    

The case eventually went to trial on damages and a verdict was entered against the assailant in an amount in excess of $23 million dollars.

Thereafter, the assailant filed a Petition to Open the Default Judgment. The assailant asserted that he was incarcerated when the trial court held the assessment of damages trial and that he did not appear because he allegedly did not have notice of the trial. The court noted that the docket confirmed that the Prothonotary provided notice to the Defendant of the trial at the Defendant’s home address, at which time the Defendant was in prison.

The Defendant additionally asserted that he was not provided with service of the original process. 

The Defendant also argued that he acted promptly once he learned of the default judgment and that he allegedly had a meritorious defense to the claims in the lawsuit, that being that the Defendant allegedly acted in self-defense.

The Pennsylvania Superior Court ruled that the trial court properly denied the Defendant’s Petition to Open or Strike the Default Judgment where the Defendant failed to show any defects with regards to the return of service of the Complaint, with regards to the 10-Day Notice of Intent to File a Default Judgment, or with respect to the Notice regarding the trial date on the assessment of damages. 

The court additionally found that the Defendant’s Petition was not timely filed.

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


Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (April 26, 2022).

Have You Registered for the Lackawanna Pro Bono Golf Tournament (or just the CLE and Lunch)?

 

Court Addresses Forum Selection Clause in a Post-Koken UIM Case As Well As the Validity of Allegations of Recklessness

In the case of Coello v. Fitzgerald and Erie Insurance Exchange, No. 7019-CV-2021 (C.P. Monroe Co. Feb. 11, 2022 Zulick, J.), the court addressed issued of proper venue in a post-Koken motor vehicle accident litigation. 

Relative to the Preliminary Objections filed by the UIM carrier Defendant asserting improper venue, the court noted that, although venue is proper in Monroe County under Pa. R.C.P. 2179, which allows for an injured party to bring a civil action against an insurance company/ corporation in a county where that company or corporation regularly conducts business, in this matter, Erie Insurance was relying upon a forum selection clause in the parties’ insurance contract.

Under that forum selection clause, the parties agreed that any suit to enforce the terms of the policy would be filed in the county of the Plaintiff’s legal domicile at the time the suit was filed. The record in this case confirmed that the Plaintiff alleged in his Complaint that he resided in Scranton, Lackawanna County.

The court upheld the forum selection clause and carved out the UIM case and transferred that portion of the case to Lackawanna County but kept the Plaintiff's case against the tortfeasor in Monroe County.

As such, the UIM carrier Defendant’s Preliminary Objections with regards to venue was sustained.

In so ruling, the court found that the Plaintiff’s argument that it would be unreasonable to put him to the expense of securing a medical expert for two (2) separate trials did not outweigh the contract provision on venue.

Judge Arthur L. Zulick
Monroe County

In his Opinion, Judge Arthur L. Zulick of the Monroe County Court of Common Pleas also addressed the tortfeasor Defendant’s demurrer against the Plaintiff’s claims against punitive damages. The tortfeasor Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff failed to allege sufficient facts to support such a claim and that the Plaintiff had only merely alleged that a motor vehicle collision had occurred.

Relative to the allegations of recklessness, Judge Zulick referred to Rule of Civil Procedure 1019(b), which provides that conditions of the mind may be averred generally. The court noted that, under the case of Archbald v. Kemble, 971 A.2d 513, 519 (Pa. Super. 2009), an allegation of recklessness is an allegation as to a condition of the mind which could be averred generally.

As such, the court denied the Defendant’s demurrer to the Plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages and noted that such a decision should be left to the jury in terms of whether the Plaintiff’s case met the burden of proof in this regard.

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


Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (April 12, 2022).