Superior Court Affirms Trial Court's Dismissal of Case Under Doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens

In its non-precedential decision in the case of Gravenor-Reuter v. Acme Markets, Inc., No. 580 EDA 2024 (Pa. Super. March 11, 2025 Dubow, J., King, J., and Sullivan, J.) (Op. by Dubow, J.), the Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed a trial court’s dismissal of a case under the doctrine of forum non conveniens.

According to the Opinion, this matter involved Plaintiffs, who are residents of Delaware, from bringing a lawsuit in Philadelphia County regarding a slip and fall incident that happened in Delaware. The court also noted that the Plaintiff’s medical care occurred in Delaware.

The Pennsylvania Superior Court noted that Delaware is an available alternative forum for the Plaintiffs in this matter. The court also ruled that the Plaintiff’s choice of forum received less deference when the Plaintiff had chosen forum that is foreign to where the case can be brought.

In this matter, the court noted that the Plaintiff offered no evidence that any corporate decisions made by the Defendant, which was headquartered elsewhere in Pennsylvania, played any role in the incident that lead to the Plaintiff’s alleged injuries.

The Pennsylvania Superior Court ultimately ruled that the trial court’s decision dismissing the case under the doctrine of forum non conveniens was not an abuse of discretion.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this non-precedential decision may click this LINK.


I send thanks to Attorney James M. Beck of the Reed Smith office in Philadelphia for brining this case to my attention.

Tort Talk as a Research Tool

 

Most Tort Talkers receive their Tort Talk info by way of email. If you are not already an email subscriber to Tort Talk and would like to become one (it's FREE), please go to Tort Talk at www.TortTalk.com and insert your email address into the Email Subscription box in the upper right hand corner of the blog and follow the instructions to complete the process.

Once you are up and running, you will automatically receive the updated posts added to Tort Talk (an average of 2-3 per week) on notable cases and trends in Pennsylvania Civil Litigation Law.

In addition to Tort Talk being a way to get free continuing updates on notable new cases and trends, it can also serve to kickstart your legal research in a streamlined fashion if you actually go to the Tort Talk site at www.TortTalk.com.  

On the site itself there are a number of research tools to help you find the case(s) or article(s) you are looking for.

Please note that Tort Talk is NOT an exhaustive legal research site--you should always supplement your research on your issue(s) presented elsewhere to ensure that you have a thorough review of the area of law in question.  Also, any case you find should be "Shepardized" to see if there has been any more recent, adverse (or favorable) rulings.

Here are the research tools available on Tort Talk that you can use to kickstart and streamline your research:


Search This Blog Box

The "Search This Blog" Box in the upper right hand column of the site allows readers to type in search terms or key words to look for posts on that particular topic. 

By typing in your search term in the white box (terms like, "delay damages," "limited tort," "slip and fall," or a case name, etc.), you will be sent to a page that will list each Tort Talk post that covers that topic. You can then click on a Link within each post that comes up in order to read the actual decision of the court.   

If the blog post does not have a Link to the decision but instead notes that you can email me for a copy, please do not hesitate to send me an email to request a copy of the decision.

Post-Koken Scorecard

You can always access the Post-Koken Scorecard to check on the status of decisions in your county on Post-Koken issues by scrolling down the right hand column of the blog and clicking on the date under the Label "Post-Koken Scorecard."


Facebook Discovery Scorecard

You can always access the Facebook Discovery Scorecard to check on the status of Pennsylvania decisions on Facebook Discovery issues by scrolling down the right hand column of the blog and clicking on the date under the Label "Facebook Discovery Scorecard."


Labels

Further down on the right hand column of the Tort Talk blog is a section called "Labels," which is another tool that you can use to find cases or articles on a specific topic.  

The topics, or Labels, are listed in alphabetical order.  

By clicking on the Label that's specific to your research ("Bad Faith," "Limited Tort," "Future Medical Expenses," etc.) you will be sent to a page that list each and every Tort Talk post that touches upon that topic.

Published Articles

If you type the word "Article" in the Search Box on the upper right hand corner of the blog, you will get to a number of different articles on various civil litigation issues.

You can get more specific in your search for an article as well, such as typing "Article recklessness," and that will bring you to an article on that topic.


Links

Last but certainly not least, down on the right hand column is a list of "Links" I have created to other sites, including my Firm's website and other online professional profiles that I have created along with links to some other legal and non-legal-related websites that may be of interest.



Thanks again for reading Tort Talk and thanks to all who have provided tips on breaking news and cases of note. I am grateful for your interest and support of the Tort Talk Blog.  Please feel free to send me a copy of any notable decisions you may generate in your practice for possible highlighting here on Tort Talk.

If I should be able to you help out in any way with respect to research on Tort Talk, or in any other way, please do not hesitate to contact me at dancummins@CumminsLaw.net or at 570-591-3969.  

LACKAWANNA PRO BONO'S GOLF TOURNAMENT (AND CLE)

 

How To Correct The Wrong Name of a Party As Listed in a Writ of Summons

 In the case of Surefire Dividend Capture, L.P. v. The PNC Fin. Serv. Group, Inc., No. 1222 WDA 2023 (Pa. Super. March 10, 2025 Olson, J., Murray, J., and Bender, P.J.E.) (Op. by Olson, J.), the Superior Court vacated a trial court’s Order permitting an amendment to a Writ of Summons to change the name of the Defendant. The court concluded that, Pa. R.C.P. 1033, by its expressed terms, applied only to pleadings and a Writ of Summons was not a pleading under Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure 1017.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiffs began a lawsuit against certain Defendants. Thereafter, the Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Amend pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1033 to amend their Writ of Summons to correct the name of one of the Defendants.

Rule 1033(a) provides, in pertinent part, that “[a] party, either by filed consent of the adverse party or by leave of court, may at any time change the form of action, add a person as a party, correct the name of the party, or otherwise amend the pleading.”

In this case, the court emphasized that the Plaintiffs had not yet filed a Complaint.

The Defendants opposed the motion claiming that the rule did not allow a party to amend a Writ of Summons and thereby add an entirely new party as a Defendant.

The Superior Court ruled the pertinent Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure and concluded that a Writ of Summons is not a pleading.

The court also noted that Rule 1033 was amended in 2014 such that it no longer allowed, and could no longer be construed to permit, the correction of the name of a party in a Writ of Summons.

The Superior Court noted that the Plaintiff’s objective could be accomplished under Pa. R.C.P. 229 by discontinuing the current action and beginning a new lawsuit. The court also noted that, under Pa. R.C.P. 1033, the Plaintiff could amend the caption of a later pleading by agreement of the party or by leave of court. It was also noted that the Plaintiff could, under Pa. R.C.P. 2232, seek leaving of court for an Order to join a Defendant.

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


Source: “The Legal Intelligencer State Appellate Case Alert,” www.Law.com (March 25, 2025).

Source of image:  Photo by Poppy Thomas Hill on www.pexels.com.

Judge Nealon of Lackawanna County Reviews the Current Status of the Law in Pennsylvania on Proper, Timely Service of Process

In the case of Doherty v. Burnham, No. 2024-CV-3829 (C.P. Lacka. Co. March 24, 2025 Nealon, J.), the court denied a Defendant’s Preliminary Objections in the nature of a demurrer seeking to dismiss a premises liability action on the grounds that the Plaintiffs failed to effectuate service of original process prior to the expiration of the applicable statute of limitations.

According to the Opinion, this matter arises out of a slip and fall event that occurred on July 3, 2022. The Plaintiffs commenced this lawsuit by filing a Writ of Summons on June 11, 2024, which was about a month before the statute of limitations expired.

The Plaintiff delivered the original process to the Lackawanna County Sheriff to be served. The Sheriff filed a Return of Service indicating that he was unable to serve the Defendant at the address provided given that the Defendant no longer resided at that address.

At that point, the Plaintiff’s attorney immediately undertook efforts to locate the Defendant’s current address. Once the Plaintiff’s attorney discovered the new address for the Defendant, Plaintiff's counsel reissued the Writ of Summons and re-delivered the Writ to the Sheriff for service. This Defendant was then served on August 21, 2024.

In the Preliminary Objections, the Defendants asserted that the Plaintiff failed to serve the Defendant within the thirty (30) day time period required by the Rules of Civil Procedure and given that service of process was not completed until after the expiration of the statute of limitations. The court noted that, in this case, forty-nine (49) days had passed between the expiration of the statute of limitations and the date service was completed.

The Plaintiffs countered with the argument that they exercise diligent efforts to complete service of process. The Plaintiffs also noted that they properly reissued the Writ of Summons and had additionally notified the Defendant’s carrier of the commencement of the suit by Writ.

In his Opinion, Judge Terrence R. Nealon of the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas provide a thorough recitation of the current status of Pennsylvania law relative to the proper completion of service of original process.

After reviewing that law and applying the same to the facts before him, Judge Nealon ruled that the Plaintiffs had presented evidence that they had diligently attempted to complete service in a timely fashion and that the Plaintiff did not engage in any conduct evincing any intent to stall the judicial machinery the Plaintiff had put in place by filing suit.

As such, the Defendant’s Preliminary Objections were overruled.

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


Source: “Scranton Judge’s Ruling Clarifies Efforts Plaintiffs Must Undergo To Serve Defendants on Time,” By Aleeza Furman of The Legal Intelligencer (March 25, 2025).

HEADS UP!! THIS WEDNESDAY, APRIL 23, IS ADMINISTRATIVE PROFESSIONALS DAY

 

This Wednesday, April 23, is Administrative Professionals Day, day to celebrate and say thanks to those who help us to keep it all together and moving forward.

Source of image:  Photo by George Dolgikh on www.pexels.com.

Federal Court Addresses Whether Nationwide's "One Product" Policy is a New Policy or a Renewal Policy

In the case of McGuire v. Nationwide Aff. Ins. Co. of America, No. 2:23-CV-01347-NR (W.D. Pa. March 6, 2025 Ranjam, J.), the court denied the carrier’s Motion for Reconsideration of the court’s previous decision relative to a UM/UIM coverage issue.

With this decision denying the carrier’s Motion for Reconsideration, the court maintained its previous position on whether Nationwide’s “One Product” policy was a new policy or a renewal of a prior policy.

In the court’s eyes, several of the “clarifications” in the One Product policy amounted to changes that reduced the amount of coverage from the prior policy. In light of this, the court ruled that the One Product policy could not be considered to be a “renewal” policy.

Rather, the court found that the purchase of a One Product policy amounted to the purchase of a new policy and that, therefore, under Pennsylvania law, Nationwide was required, as with any other purchase of UM or UIM coverage, to provide its insureds with a new stacking waiver form to execute under 75 Pa. C.S.A. §1738(c).

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

I send thanks to Attorney Scott Cooper of the Harrisburg law firm Schmidt Kramer for bringing this decision to my attention.

UPCOMING CLE FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION

 I thank Harris Bock for inviting me to present at his famous annual CLE this year.

I will be presenting an update on notable court decisions and trends in Pennsylvania personal injury litigation matters over the past year or so as highlighted on my Tort Talk Blog (www.TortTalk.com).

Need CLE credits?

Please consider registering for this seminar at which you can attend via Zoom on April 24, 2025.  The spots for live, in-person attendance have been sold out.

Thanks for considering -- hope to see you there.

 

GOLF TOURNAMENT AND/OR CLE -- PLEASE SUPPORT LACKAWNNA PRO BONO

 

Zero Verdict For Pain and Suffering Sent Back Down For a New Trial

In its non-precedential decision in the case of Banasiak v. Robinson, No. 2041 EDA 2023 (Pa. Super. Feb. 24, 2025 Olson, J., Dubow, J., and Lane, J.) (Op. by Olson, J.), the Superior Court sent a zero verdict case back down the appellate ladder for a new trial.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff was run over by the Defendant’s truck and eventually had to have a leg amputated.

At trial, a jury awarded the Plaintiff his medical expenses but award zero for pain and suffering.

The appellate court ruled that the zero award for pain and suffering was against the weight of the evidence. The court also found that the zero award to the Plaintiff’s wife for loss of consortium was likewise against the weight of the evidence.

Here, the court confirmed that the Defendant did not offer any expert evidence contesting the causation of the Plaintiff’s injury. The Superior Court also reiterated the rule of law that a jury cannot disregard an obvious injury.

The court found that there was no reasonable basis for the jury to believe either that the Plaintiff did not suffer pain or that the Plaintiff's pain was not caused by the Defendant’s negligence.

As such, the case was remanded to the trial court for a new trial.

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


I send thanks to Attorney James M. Beck of the Reed Smith office in Philadelphia for bringing this case to my attention.

Court Rejects Summary Judgment For Open and Obvious Condition in Trip and Fall Case

In the case of Knepp v. Wal-Mart Stores East, L.P., No. 3:22-CV-144 (W.D. Pa. Feb. 28, 2025 Fischer, J.), the court denied a Motion for Summary Judgment in a case in which the Defendant relied upon the open and obvious doctrine relative to a trip and fall incident.

According to the Opinion, this matter arose out of an incident during which the Plaintiff tripped over a pallet corner that was protruding out from a watermelon display.  The Plaintiff offered a liability expert who offered an opinion that the store's placement of the watermelon display in a store aisle with the corner of the pallet protruding out violated OSHA standards to keep walkways clear.  The expert also opined that the display created a tripping hazard for customers and employees alike.   

In denying the summary judgment motion, the court ruled that, even assuming that the condition that caused the Plaintiff to trip was open and obvious, summary judgment was denied in this case where a jury could decide that the Defendant was negligent because the Defendant had reason to expect that a business invitee could be distracted, could fail to discover, and/or could fail to remember what was obvious and, could thereby fail to protect himself or herself.

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


I send thanks to Attorney James M. Beck of the Reed Smith office in Philadelphia for bringing this case to my attention.

Source of image:  Photo by Bo Cho on www.pexels.com.

UPCOMING CLE TO CONSIDER

 I thank Harris Bock for inviting me to present at his famous annual CLE this year.

I will be presenting an update on notable court decisions and trends in Pennsylvania personal injury litigation matters over the past year or so as highlighted on my Tort Talk Blog (www.TortTalk.com).

Need CLE credits?

Please consider registering for this seminar at which you can attend via Zoom on April 24, 2025.  The spots for live, in-person attendance have been sold out.

Thanks for considering -- hope to see you there.

 

Allegations of Recklessness Allowed to Stand in a Complaint

In the case of Lupin v. Evans Delivery Co., Inc., No. 3159-CV-2024 (C.P. Monroe Co. Jan. 21, 2025 C. Daniel Higgins, Jr., J.), the court overruled a Defendant’s Preliminary Objections against allegations of recklessness in a civil litigation matter.

The court reviewed the current status of the law and noted that, under Pa. R.C.P. 1019(b), allegations regarding malice, intent, knowledge, and other conditions of the mind may be generally alleged.

This court also noted that the Superior Court has concluded that allegations of wanton conduct is a condition of the mind that may be alleged generally. This court also noted that the Superior Court had held that, because allegations of recklessness are synonymous with allegations of wanton and willful misconduct, allegations of recklessness may also be alleged generally.

As such, the court overruled the Defendant’s Preliminary Objections.

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

Source: The Legal Intelligencer Common Pleas Case Alert, www.Law.com (March 20, 2025).

DON'T FORGET TO REGISTER FOR THE LACKAWANNA PRO BONO GOLF TOURNAMENT

 

Court Addresses Admissibility of Expert Testimony Under the Federal Employer's Liability Act

In the case of Lindsay v. Delaware and Hudson Railway Co., Inc., No. 2019-CV-3949 (C.P. Lacka. Co. March 3, 2025 Nealon, J.), the court addressed a pre-trial Motion In Limine filed by the Defendants seeking to preclude the opinions of a Plaintiff’s medical expert in a personal injury claim arising out of the Federal Employer’s Liability Act. The Defendants contended that the Plaintiff’s medical expert’s causation opinions were inadmissible since they were based upon methodologies that were not generally accepted in the relevant scientific community.

After reviewing the expert’s report and noting that the expert had a section of his report entitled “Methodology” in which the doctor described the methodologies he utilized in formulating his general causation and specific causation opinions, the court denied the Defendant’s Motion In Limine.

The court note that the materials submitted for the court’s review confirm that the Plaintiff’s medical expert based his causation opinions upon his knowledge, experience, and training in internal medicine, oncology, and hematology, the review of the Plaintiff’s medical records and deposition testimony, the Defendant’s discovery responses, other expert reports, along with the application of the generally accepted methodologies for general causation and specific causation.

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

Source of image: Photo by Todd Trapani on www.pexels.com.

MEDIATION SUCCESS TIP FROM CUMMINS MEDIATION SERVICES

 

 TIP TO IMPROVE CHANCES 

FOR SUCCESS AT MEDIATION:

PROVIDE YOUR MEDIATION SUBMISSIONS TO YOUR OPPONENT --- DON'T KEEP THEM CONFIDENTIAL

YOUR MATERIALS GIVE YOUR OPPONENT AMMUNITION TO GET CLIENT/CLAIMS REP TO CHANGE THEIR POSITION 

Court Addresses Admissibility of Expert Opinions

In the case of Twigg v. Varsity Brands Holding Co., No. 4:23-CV-00067 (M.D. Pa. March 7, 2025 Brann, C.J.), the court provided the latest pronouncement on the Rules of Admissibility for an expert witness under Federal Rule of Evidence 702.

This products liability case arose out of an accident during which a baseball coach was struck by a batted ball that went through an L-screen net while he was pitching batting practice.

In his decision in this case Chief Judge Matthew W. Brann granted in part and denied in part Rule 702 motions regarding experts in the case. In so ruling, the court noted the following principles of law.

An expert’s lack of technical background does not render an expert unqualified where that expert has sufficient practical experience.

The court also ruled that an expert need not have familiarity with a product in order to evaluate the adequacy of a manufacturer’s testing protocols.

The court also noted that an expert may rely solely upon material provided to the expert by counsel. However, that expert is not permitted to rely upon material that has not been disclosed to the opposing party.

The court also reaffirmed the rule that an expert may not testify about matters outside the scope of their opinions.

The court also noted that experts may assume the truth of the contested facts asserted by the parties who hired them. The weight of such opinions depends on how the jury ultimately views the underlying facts.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.  The court's companion Order can be viewed HERE.


I send thanks to Attorney James M. Beck of the Reed Smith office in Philadelphia for bringing this case to my attention.

Federal Court Remands Case To State Court After Finding Diversity Jurisdiction Defeated by Joinder of Store Manager as a Defendant

In the case of Jones v. Wal-Mart Stores East, LP, No. 2:24-CV-05521-KNS (E.D. Pa. Feb. 4, 2025 Scott, J.), the court granted a Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand this case from federal court back to the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas.

According to the Opinion, this case arose out a trip and fall case that occurred at a Wal-Mart store.

The Plaintiff filed the lawsuit in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas. The Plaintiff sued Wal-Mart and the store manager.

Wal-Mart removed the case to federal court asserting that the store manager Defendant was fraudulently joined and that, therefore, the requirements for a federal diversity jurisdiction were satisfied.

The federal court disagreed and held that remand was required where complete diversity jurisdiction did not exist in light of the fact that the Plaintiff had asserted a valid negligence claims against an individual store manger who, like the Plaintiff, was a Pennsylvania citizen.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.  The Court's companion Order can be viewed at this LINK.


Source: The Legal Intelligencer Federal Case Alert, www.Law.com (March 7, 2025).

Court Finds That Arbitration Agreement on a Website Was Invalid as it Was Not Conspicuously Noted

In the case of W.W. v. Allegheny Health Network, No. 2:23-CV-01163-CCW (W.D. Pa. Feb. 27, 2025 Wiegand, J.), the court denied a Defendant’s Motion to Compel Arbitration of the Plaintiff’s claims after finding that the Arbitration Agreement, which was contained in a document that could be accessed through a link to the Defendant’s website, was not sufficiently conspicuous enough to put the Plaintiff on notice that the Plaintiff was agreeing to Arbitration.

According to the Opinion, in this matter, the Plaintiff alleged that Alleghany Health Network unlawfully collected confidential health information from users to visited the Defendant’s website and then disclosed the visitor’s information to third parties in violation of federal and state law.

In response to the Complaint filed, the Defendant moved to compel Arbitration pursuant to the Arbitration Agreement appearing in the network’s Terms of Service, a link to which appeared on the Defendant’s website.

The court determined that the Arbitration Agreement was not valid because the Plaintiff did not have actual or constructive notice of the agreement.

The Defendant had contended that the continued use of the website by visitors constituted acceptance of the terms of service contained in the link on the website.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff denied ever seeing the terms at issue or clicking the link to the terms of the Arbitration Agreement. As such, the Plaintiff asserted that there was no valid contract because he was never aware of the Arbitration Agreement since he never read, reviewed, or opened the Terms of Service.

In ruling in favor of the Plaintiff, the court noted that the Defendant’s Terms of Service do not require or allow users to ‘signed’ the Terms of Service, thereby calling into question whether or to the Plaintiff ever saw the Terms of Service at issue. The court additionally found that the link itself to the Terms of Service was not sufficiently conspicuous.

The court also noted that the Defendant failed to have an “explicit textual notice” informing visitors to the site that the continued use of the website constituted acceptance of the terms. Here, visitors to the website had to scroll past numerous sections of content to even reach a footer that contained the link to the terms of service. Once a visitor got to that area of the website, the link at issue was one of over forty other links in the footer. As such, the court found that the link at issue and/or the Terms of Service themselves, were not reasonably conspicuous.

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

Source: Article – “Arbitration Agreement Linked On Healthcare Website Isn’t Binding, Fed. Judge Rules,” By Riley Brennan of the Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Feb. 28, 2025).

Source of image:  Photo by Christin Hume on www.unsplash.com.

PLEASE CONSIDER REGISTERING TO ATTEND THIS UPCOMING CLE LIVE OR VIRTUALLY

 I thank Harris Bock for inviting me to present at his famous annual CLE this year.

I will be presenting an update on notable court decisions and trends in Pennsylvania personal injury litigation matters over the past year or so as highlighted on my Tort Talk Blog (www.TortTalk.com).

Need CLE credits?

Please consider registering for this seminar at which you can attend via Zoom or live and in-person in Philadelphia on April 24, 2025.

Thanks for considering -- hope to see you there.

 

Medical Battery Claim Dismissed From Medical Malpractice Case

In the case of Herr v. Myers, No. 30007 of 2023, C.A. (C.P. Lawr. Co. Dec. 4, 2024 Hodge, J.), the court sustained various Preliminary Objections asserted by medical malpractice Defendants.

In this case, the Plaintiff sued certain medical providers under a claim of medical battery arising from post-surgical home health care. According to the Plaintiff, a registered nurse removed his post-surgical wound vac contrary to the instructions of his physicians. The Plaintiff alleged that this removal of the post-surgical wound vac caused complications that required additional treatment and surgery.

The Plaintiff sued the registered nurse and her employer for negligence in medical battery. The Defendants responded with Preliminary Objections, asserting in part, that the Plaintiff’s claims for medical battery was legally insufficient because the Medical Care Availability and Reduction of Error Act (MCARE Act) did not provide a cause of action for medical battery against nurses, who are not responsible for obtaining informed consent. The Defendants also objected to the Plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages.

The court agreed that a nurse is excluded from the definition of a “healthcare provider” who must obtain a patient’s informed consent under both the common law and the MCARE Act.

However, the court noted that the removal of a wound vac did not constitute a surgical procedure and that the wound vac was not classified as a surgical device.

The court also noted that the Defendant healthcare provider who removed the wound vac was a registered nurse rather than a physician or a surgeon and that the registered nurse was, therefore, not required to obtain informed consent when providing routine medical treatment.

Accordingly, the court sustained the Defendants’ Preliminary Objections regarding Plaintiff’s claim for medical battery and struck this claim from the Complaint.

The court also found that the Plaintiff’s claims for punitive damages were legal insufficient as the Plaintiff’s Complaint only stated facts sufficient to assert a claim of negligence. The court found that the alleged facts were not sufficient to demonstrate a level of recklessness necessary to support an award of punitive damages. As such, the punitive damages claims was also stricken.

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


Source: The Legal Intelligencer Common Pleas Case Alert, www.Law.com (March 6, 2025).

You've Got To Know When To Hold 'Em, Know When to Fold 'Em

In the case of Dhaduk v. Patel, No. 2024-CV-5196 (C.P. Lacka. Co. March 31, 2025 Nealon, J.), the court granted demurrers against a Plaintiff’s claim in a case arising out of a neurologist and his wife who sued an internist seeking to recover $700,000.00 for gambling losses that allegedly occurred at a Florida casino.

The Plaintiffs allege that the neurologist agreed to play blackjack on behalf of the internist with the express understanding that the internist would be responsible for any resulting gambling losses suffered by the neurologist in the process. The Plaintiffs claimed that the internist had not reimbursed the neurologist for $200,000.00 for chips that the neurologist purchased and lost and for an additional $500,000.00 that the neurologist obtained from his casino line of credit and ultimately lost playing blackjack.

According to the Opinion, the Defendant doctor filed demurrers to the Plaintiff's claims of breach of contract, promissory estoppel, fraud, and unjust enrichment. 

Judge Terrence R. Nealon of the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas issued a lengthy Opinion outlining the current status of the law on these types of claims in the context of request for payment of gambling indebtedness.

Judge Nealon noted that, unlike other states with comparable statutes barring the collection of gambling debts and voiding any contracts for the payment of gambling indebtedness, the Pennsylvania legislature has never amended the Pennsylvania prohibitory statute in order to restrict its debt collection ban to illegal gambling or to create an exception for debts resulting from lawful gambling activities. 

Judge Nealon confirmed that the law in Pennsylvania remains that gambling debts between private individuals are uncollectible and that any related contracts regarding gambling are void.

As such, based upon the plain language of the applicable Pennsylvania statute, as well as a review of Florida’s corresponding statute, the court ruled that the Defendant could not be found liable in this case. Accordingly, the Defendant’s demurrers to all of the claims asserted by the Plaintiff were sustained.

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

Source of image: Photo by Anna Shvets on www.pexels.com.

New Rule Requiring Judges To Be In Courtroom For Jury Selection Goes Into Effect

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court's amendment of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure to include a mandate that a trial court judge be present in the courtroom for jury selections in civil cases unless the litigants opt out of the requirement goes into effect today, April 1, 2025.

This Rule can be found under Pa. R.C.P. 220.3 and can be seen at this LINK.

Here is a LINK to my article on this topic that appeared in the Pennsylvania Lawyer magazine five years ago in a March/April 2020 edition of the magazine.  The article reviews the jurisprudence on the issue back then, which jurisprudence has since led to the current amendment to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure regarding voir dire.  The article also reviews the benefits of having a Judge stay on the bench during voir dire, especially for the prospective members of the jury.

Source of image:  Photo by Nothing Ahead on www.pexels.com.