Judge Nealon of Lackawanna County Tackles Numerous Asbestos Litigation Issues

In his recent 71 page Opinion in the case of Horst v. Union Carbide Corp. et al., No. 15 CV 1903 (C.P. Lacka. Co. April 27, 2016 Nealon, J.), Judge Terrence R. Nealon tackled a variety of issues raised in motions for summary judgments filed by twelve different defendants.

The Opinion contains useful nuggets of analysis addressing unique case law establishing special standards for medical causation, lay opinion testimony, the statute of repose, and punitive damages in asbestos litigation.

Anyone wishing to review this Horst decision may click this LINK.

Lackawanna County Judge Nealon Addresses Forum Non Conveniens Motion For Transfer of Venue

In his recent August 3, 2015 Opinion in the case of Horst v. Union Carbide Corporation, No. 2015-CV-1903 (C.P. Lacka. Co. Aug. 3, 2015 Nealon, J.), Judge Terrence R. Nealon of the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas denied a Defendant’s Petition to Transfer Venue of a personal injury asbestos action on forum non conveniens grounds.

According to the Opinion, the Defendant, who maintained its principal place of business in Lancaster County, petitioned the court to transfer venue to Lancaster County under a primary argument that the litigation of this matter in Lackawanna County was vexatious and/or oppressive to the Defendants.

Judge Nealon reviewed the current status of the standard of review on a petition for a transfer of venue on the Pa. R.C.P. 1006(d)(1) in a thorough Opinion.

Concisely, Judge Nealon noted that, in order to prevail on such a Petition for Transfer of Venue under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, the Defendants must establish "with detailed information on the record" that the Plaintiffs’ choice of forum is either (1) designed to harass the Defendants, or (2) appreciably burdensome in terms of access to witnesses and trial evidence.

After noting that the record before him did not support a finding that the Defendant had met the required elements of the test, Judge Nealon denied the Petition to Transfer Venue to Lancaster County under Rule 1006(d)(1) as the Defendants had not met their "heavy burden" imposed under Pennsylvania law. 
Anyone wishing to review this Horst Opinion by Judge Nealon may click this LINK.

Judge Nealon of Lackawanna County Again Reviews Validity of Punitive Damages Claims in Asbestos Litigation

In his recent decision in the asbestos litigation case of Horst v. Union Carbide Corp., No. 2015-CV-1903 (C.P. Lacka. Co. July 26, 2016 Nealon, J.), Judge Terrence R. Nealon of the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas reviewed Motions for Summary Judgment filed by various Defendants against punitive damages claims presented by the Plaintiffs.  

After reviewing the general law regarding punitive damages, the court also noted that the appellate courts of Pennsylvania have more specifically ruled that, in asbestos litigation, that the existence of medical articles and trade journal publications discussing the dangers of asbestos inhalation are insufficient to support a claim for punitive damages absent some proof that the asbestos Defendant knew or had reason to know of the content of that literature. 

Judge Terrence R. Nealon
Lackawanna County

 

The court noted that various Motions for Summary Judgment previously filed by some Defendants seeking partial summary judgment with respect to the Plaintiffs’ punitive damages claims were granted in this matter as there was no evidence that any of those Defendants knew or had reason to know of the articles or studies cited by the Plaintiffs and their expert.   However, based upon internal company documentation that certain other Defendants did have a subjective appreciation of the risk of arm, those other Defendants’ Motions in this regard were denied.  

In this particular decision, the court again denied certain Defendants Motions for Partial Summary Judgment but denied another Defendant's motion in a mixed result decision based upon the facts at hand.     

Anyone wishing to review this decision may click this LINK.

Here is a LINK to other Tort Talk posts on other decisions by Judge Nealon in this same asbestos litigation case.

Scope of Trial Court's Authority to Limit Openings, Examinations, and Closings at Trial Reviewed

In a recent decision in the case of Horst v. Union Carbide Corporation, No. 15-CV-1903 (C.P. Lacka. Co. Oct. 11, 2017 Nealon, J.), Judge Terrence R. Nealon of the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas reviewed the scope of a trial judge's authority to impose limitations upon the length and number of opening statements, closing arguments, and examinations of witnesses pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 223 and 225.  

This asbestos action was proceeding under allegations that the Plaintiff allegedly developed malignant mesothelioma as a result of the Plaintiff’s alleged exposure to asbestos-containing products that were allegedly manufactured or sold by the Defendants while the Plaintiff was employed by his father’s heating, ventilation, air conditioning, and plumbing business.  

The court noted that it had issued this Order imposing limitations on the trial proceedings after counsel had initially represented to the court that the trial of this matter would last three (3) weeks after which the Defendants more recently revealed to the court that four (4) trial weeks or twenty (20) days, would be required to present the Defendants' case only.  

Accordingly, the court noted that, in order to ensure that the trial would be completed within the allotted time that was originally fixed based upon the initial representations of counsel, the court entered an Order imposing limitations upon the length and number of the opening statements, closing arguments, and examination of witnesses.   In this decision, the court denies the Motion for Reconsideration filed by eleven (11) of the twelve (12) Defendants in which the Defendants requested that all of eleven (11) participating Defendants be granted the opportunity through their respective counsel to present opening statements, closing arguments, and to examine all non-expert witnesses called by the Plaintiff.  

After reviewing Pennsylvania law in support of its decision and authority to limit certain aspects of trial proceedings, the trial court granted in part and denied in part the Motion for Reconsideration.   The Motion for Reconsideration was granted to the extent that the prior Order of Court was amended to provide that all Defendants shall be allotted and aggregated a period of 180 minutes within which to present and conclude all opening statements on behalf of Defendants as well as a same amount of time within which to complete closing arguments for all Defendants.   In all other respects, the Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration was denied.  

Anyone wishing to read this Opinion may click this LINK.