Federal Court Bounces Premises Liability Case Back to State Court After Finding That Store Manager Was Fraudulently Joined in the Matter

In the case of Kincaid v. Dollar Tree, Inc., No. 2:25-CV-00787 (W.D. Pa. Sept. 2, 2025 Stickman, J.), the court denied a Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand a matter to the state court and also granted the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss the store manager as a Defendant.

This case arose out of an incident that occurred at a Dollar Tree store where the Plaintiff allegedly reached up to a top shelf to grab a coffee mug and the mug tipped over, spilling its contents onto her face, body and clothing. The Plaintiff alleged that the cup contained urine and other hazardous fluids.

The Plaintiff originally filed suit in state court. The Defendant removed the matter to federal court.

In removing the case to federal court, the Defendants asserted that the Plaintiff’s joinder of the store manager into the lawsuit was a purposeful effort to have residents from Pennsylvania on both the Plaintiffs side and the defense side of this matter so as to preclude removal on the basis that there was no diversity of citizenship.

The Plaintiff filed a Motion to Remand the case to state court.

The court held that, as pled, there were no grounds upon which the Plaintiff may maintain an action against the store manager under Pennsylvania law.  In this Opinion, the court noted that the “Plaintiff’s argument is an exercising sophistry.”  Accordingly, the court denied the Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand and granted the store manager’s Motion for a Dismissal.

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


I send thanks to Attorney Sarah E. Cobbs of the Pittsburgh office of the law firm of Thomas, Thomas & Hafer, LLP, for bringing this case to my attention.

LACKAWANNA PRO BONO GALA SET FOR NOVEMBER 6, 2025

 

The Bus Stops Here: Trial Court Finds Venue Proper in Philadelphia Based on Busing Company's Defendant's Periodic Contacts in the County

Philadelphia Skyline

In the case of Warren v. Heagy, No. 240100294 (C.P. Phila. Co. May 2025 Anders, J.), the court issued a Rule 1925 Opinion requesting the Superior Court to affirm the trial court’s Order overruling the Defendant’s Preliminary Objections that Philadelphia County was an improper venue for the case.

According to the Opinion, this matter involved a motor vehicle accident during which a bus owned by the Defendant bus company collided with the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

The Defendants asserted in Preliminary Objections that the Defendant bus company had no physical presence in Philadelphia County, did not derive any revenue from customers located in Philadelphia County, and does not perform acts or maintain contacts in Philadelphia County sufficient to satisfy the quality-quantity tests for venue.

The court overruled the Preliminary Objections after noting that the record revealed that the Defendant bus company is in the business of transporting students to and from school and activities, including transporting students into Philadelphia County for purposes of activity such as field trips. It was noted that over the years, the business company had transported students into Philadelphia County about 10 times during one school year and 10 times during another school year, and 23-30 times on another recent school year.

After reviewing the law regarding the quality-quantity tests for proper venue, the court ruled that the evidence before it demonstrated that the Defendant regularly conducted business in Philadelphia County.

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

Source: “The Legal Intelligencer Common Pleas Case Alert,” www.Law.com (July 2, 2025).

PA Supreme Court Issues Interim Policy On Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence By Judicial Officers And Court Personnel (Effective Dec. 8, 2025)

Here is a LINK to the interim policy that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has issued for judges and court personnel who want to use AI.

The policy allow for judges and court personnel to utilizes AI for summarizing documents, conducting preliminary legal research, and drafting initial versions of documents.

These rules which are identified as the “Interim Policy On The Use Of Generative Artificial Intelligence By Judicial Officers And Court Personnel" goes into effect on December 8, 2025.

It is anticipated that, in the near future, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court may also come out with rules to guide attorneys on the proper of AI in the practice of law relative to any filings with the courts.

Source: Article – “Pa. High Court Allow Judges, Personnel To Use AI For Document Summary, Preliminary Legal Research” By Max Mitchell of the Legal Intelligencer (Sept. 9, 2025).

MEDIATION SUCCESS TIP FROM CUMMINS MEDIATION SERVICES

 

 TIP TO IMPROVE CHANCES 

FOR SUCCESS AT MEDIATION:

TRUST THE MEDIATOR TO KEEP IN CONFIDENCE WHAT YOU WANT KEPT IN CONFIDENCE

WITH THAT TRUST, BE CANDID WITH THE MEDIATOR ON YOUR SETTLEMENT POSITION

THIS WILL HELP THE MEDIATOR TO FRAME AND PUSH THE NEGOTIATIONS IN THE OTHER ROOM 

Trial Court Denies Various Motions For Summary Judgment in a Medical Malpractice Case

In the case of Leber v. Frattali, No. 2023-CV-1442 (C.P. Lacka. Co. 2025 Powell, J.), the court addressed fifteen (15) pre-trial motions presented by the defense, which included fourteen (14) Motions for Partial Summary Judgment and one (1) Motion for Summary Judgment in a wrongful death and survival action arising out of a medical malpractice claim.

Overall, the court found that genuine issues of material fact prevented the court from entering any judgments.

In particular, the court rejected the defense claims that the Plaintiff’s expert reports were insufficient to establish negligence. The court stressed that issues of the credibility of the experts and the differing interpretations of risk models were for the jury to resolve, not the court on summary judgment.

The court additionally noted that alleged systemic negligence, including lack of training, inadequate policies, and supervisory failures, could all serve to support claims of corporate negligence and constructive notice.

In the end, the court reiterated that there were issues of fact that prevented the entry of summary judgment on the claims presented. Accordingly, all defense Motions for Summary Judgment and Partial Summary Judgment were denied.

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

Plaintiff Wins Denial of Summary Judgment Motion Without Even Filing a Response

 

In the case of Dunkel v. Dallago, No. S-1335-CV-2022 (C.P. Schuly. Co. Sept. 5, 2025 Burke, J.), the court denied a Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment in a motor vehicle accident case in which the Defendant asserted that it should be granted summary judgment in light of the Plaintiff’s failure to produce any expert medical testimony on the issues of causation.  

The Plaintiff, who was represented by counsel, failed to file any response whatsoever to the Motion for Summary Judgment. The court still denied the Motion for Summary Judgment after finding that it had the discretion to excuse this failure and otherwise rule upon the Motion.

According to the Opinion, this matter arose out of a motor vehicle accident as a result of which the Plaintiff alleged personal injuries.

Relative to the defense argument that it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law given the Plaintiff’s failure to produce expert medical testimony to support the Plaintiff’s burden of proof on causation, the court referenced the exception to the law generally requiring such expert testimony. The court noted that, under that exception, where there is an obvious causal relationship between an accident and an injury, the requirement of expert testimony may be excused. The court noted that an obvious causal relationship can be found to exist where the injuries are either an “immediate and direct” or the “natural and probable” of the alleged negligent act.

The court found that there remained factual issues in this regard supported the court's denial of the request for the entry of summary judgment.

Although the Plaintiff never filed a Response to the Motion, the court also went on to note that there were other genuine issues of material fact presented in the case.  The court noted that the Plaintiff claimed that the Defendant was negligent and the Defendant not only denied negligence in its pleadings but also asserted contributory negligence against the Plaintiff. The court also noted sua sponte that there were other issues likely to be raised at the time of trial, including the speed of the Defendant’s vehicle, whether the Defendant was distracted at the time of the accident, and whether the Defendant pled guilty to any criminal charges in connection with the accident.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of the Court’s Opinion granting summary judgment in favor of a Plaintiff who did not file any Response to the Motion may click this LINK.

Source of image:  www.urbandictionary.com.

Court Rules that Punitive Damages May Not Be Claimed for Post-Incident Conduct

In the case of Pavlik v. Smith, No. 2024-CV-09109 (C.P. Luz. Co. Aug. 1, 2025 Gelb, J.) the court denied a Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint in a dog bite case.

Of note, the court denied the Plaintiff’s efforts to file an Amended Complaint that would contain a claim for punitive damages for post-incident conduct by the Defendants relative to the dog bite incident.

The court noted that punitive damages are not available for post-incident conduct of a tortfeasor. In so ruling, the court cited, with “see” signals, the cases of Bert Co. v. Turk, 298 A.3d 44, 61 (Pa. 2023) (Explaining that the fact-finder may impose punitive damages for torts, as opposed to any post-incident conduct) and Feld v. Merriam, 485 A.2d 742, 748 (Pa. 1984) (Stating that “one must look to the act itself together with all circumstances when imposing punitive damages).

Anyone wishing to review this detailed Order without Opinion may click this LINK.

SAVE THE DATE -- NOVEMBER 6TH -- LACKAWANNA PRO BONO GALA

 

Trial Court Allows Claims of Recklessness and Punitive Damages to Proceed Where Defendant Driver Took Eyes Off Road Where Something Fell to the Floor of Vehicle

In the case of Lin v. Gutowski, No. 2024-CV-5659 (C.P. Lacka. Co. Aug. 11, 2025 Powell, J.), Judge Mark Powell of the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas overruled a Defendant’s Preliminary Objections seeking to strike claims for recklessness, punitive damages, and negligent entrustment in an alleged distracted driver motor vehicle accident case.

Judge Mark Powell
Lackawanna County

Relative to the allegations of recklessness, Judge Powell followed the current trend of allowing allegations of recklessness to be pled generally in cases where negligence has been alleged. With regards to the claims for punitive damages, the court noted that the Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant was distracted by an item that fell to the floor which caused him to remove his eyes from the road while approaching the intersection at a speed that was allegedly too fast for the conditions and while failing to yield to traffic where the Plaintiff was attempting to make a left hand turn.

The court found that the allegations presented by the Plaintiff rendered it unclear as to whether or not a jury could find that such conduct was reckless such that the claim for punitive damages could be supported. In so ruling, Judge Powell cited to a Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision in which it was stated that a more appropriate course of action under the circumstances would be to pull to the side of the road to retrieve the item.

The court otherwise noted that the allegations that the Defendant driver diverted his eyes from the road, in combination with the allegations that the Defendant was traveling too fast for conditions and that he failed to yield to other traffic on the roadway, all served to support the Plaintiff’s potential claim for punitive damages. The court noted that it was otherwise not clear and free from doubt as to the Defendant’s subjective understanding of the risk his conduct posted to the safety of others and whether or the Defendant carelessly disregarded those risks. Accordingly, the court allowed the claim for punitive damages to proceed.

In his decision, Judge Powell also outlined the current status of the law regarding negligent entrustment claims. After applying that law to the case presented, the court noted that the Plaintiff’s claims that the Defendant owner knew or should have known that the Defendant driver had a prior history of motor vehicle violations and that the Defendant driver would allegedly fail to operate the vehicle safely, that the Defendant driver had a propensity for speeding and driving while distracted and for ignoring the law, not only stated claims for negligence, but also supported claims of recklessness for which a jury may decide to award punitive damages. As such, the court also overruled the Defendant’s Preliminary Objections to the Plaintiff’s claims of negligent entrustment.

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


I send thanks to Attorney Stephen T. Kopko of the Anzalone and Doyle law firm in Wilkes-Barre, PA for bringing this case to my attention.

Trial Court Gives Lessons on Medical Malpractice Complaint Drafting

In the case of Dawes v. The Williamsport Home, No. 2025-CV-00381 (C.P. Lyc. Co. June 6, 2025 Carlucci, J.), the court granted in part and denied in part Preliminary Objections filed against a Plaintiff’s claim in a medical malpractice case arising out of alleged negligent care regarding the Plaintiff’s thoracic surgical wound.

According to the Opinion, the court denied the Defendant’s demurrer to the Plaintiffs’ claim for punitive damages but still directed the Plaintiff to file an Amended Complaint which either deletes any claim for punitive damages or sets forth sufficient material allegations in support of the same.

Relative to any claims against any agents or employees of the medical Defendants the court directed that the Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint should limit allegations regarding the acts or omissions by a Defendant or its agent or employees to that conduct that the Plaintiff contends was a substantial factor in causing the Plaintiff’s injuries. In this regard, the court directed the Plaintiff to not include any extraneous allegations not pertinent to the causation issues. 

The court also required the Plaintiff to provide additional factual support and allegations on the claims for corporate liability.

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


Source: “The Legal Intelligencer Common Pleas Case Alert,” www.Law.com (Aug. 7, 2025).

BRING YOUR CASE TO A CLOSE WITH CUMMINS MEDIATION

 BRING YOUR CASE TO A CLOSE

DANIEL E. CUMMINS, ESQ.

570-319-5899

dancummins@CumminsLaw.net

Contact CUMMINS MEDIATION SERVICES to set up your Mediation to bring your case to a close.

Who better to get an insurance company to increase their award

than the writer of Tort Talk and

an insurance defense attorney trusted by carriers to get them out of trouble?

HERE'S A SAMPLING OF JUST SOME OF THE FIRMS

WHO PREVIOUSLY SECURED SETTLEMENTS AT MEDIATIONS WITH CUMMINS MEDIATION SERVICES:

HOURIGAN, KLUGER & QUINN

LENAHAN & DEMPSEY

ABRAHAMSEN, CONABOY & ABRAHAMSEN

POWELL LAW

CEFALO & ASSOCIATES

LAW OFFICES OF JAMES D. FAMIGLIO

FOLEY LAW FIRM

NEEDLE LAW

OSTROFF GODSHALL

FISHER & FISHER

BLAKE & WALSH

CAPUTO & MARRIOTTI

HAGGERTY, HINTON & COSGROVE

SLUSSER LAW

VINSKO & ASSOCIATES

BISCONTINI LAW FIRM

MECADON LAW

LAW OFFICES OF LEO JACKSON

SOBO & SOBO

MARKS O'NEILL, O'BRIEN, DOHERTY & KELLY

RAWLE & HENDERSON

POST & SCHELL

SWARTZ CAMPBELL

BENNETT BRICKLIN & SALTZBURG

CIPRIANI & WERNER

MINTZER SAROWITZ, ZERIS, LEDVA & MEYERS

SHAY, SANTEE, KELHART & DESCHLER, LLC

McCORMICK & PRIORE

THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER

SCANLON, HOWLEY & DOHERTY

MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN

MARSHALL DENNEHEY

ELLIOTT GREENLEAF

COLEMAN LAW OFFICES

PennDOT

SELECTIVE INSURANCE IN-HOUSE COUNSEL OFFICE

NATIONWIDE INSURANCE IN-HOUSE COUNSEL

TRAVELERS INSURANCE IN-HOUSE COUNSEL

Summary Judgment Granted in Water Park Ride Under "No-Duty" Rule

In the case of Mantilla v. CMBK Resort Holdings, LLC, No. 5780-Civil-2023 (C.P. Monroe Co. April 25, 2025 Williamson, J.), the court granted a Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment in a case in which the Plaintiff alleged injuries from a water park ride during which the raft either flipped or the Plaintiff fell from it, resulting in injuries to the Plaintiff.

After reviewing the applicable law, which included the fact that, generally speaking, purveyors of theaters, amusement parks, or sports facilities have a “no-duty” rule to protect a party from injuries so long as the injuries suffered arose from a risk that was “common, frequent, and expected” of the situation.

The court ruled that, based upon the record before it, the Plaintiff has failed to allege or establish any conduct on the part of the Defendants that was not an inherent risk of utilizing a water slide.

In this matter, the Plaintiff admitted at her deposition that her raft flipped due to a sudden change in the water pressure, causing her to strike her shoulder on the side of the slide itself. The court noted that this is an inherent risk of water slides, where unexpected changes in water flow and the possibility of body parts colliding with the hard surface of the tube.

Given that the Plaintiff failed to show any other evidence of negligence and given that the Defendant had no duty to protect the Plaintiff from the “common, frequent, and expected” dangers of water slides, the court granted summary judgment.

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


Source: “The Legal Intelligencer Common Pleas Case Alert,” www.Law.com (July 10, 2025).

Who Bears the Burden of Proving a Plaintiff is Covered by the Limited Tort Option?

In the case of Rogers v. Blair, No. 2:24-CV-01534-ETH (E.D. Pa. July 28, 2025 Hey, M.J.), a federal magistrate judge addressed the issue of how to resolve a dispute over whether or not a motor vehicle accident Plaintiff was covered under the limited tort option.

In this matter, on the issue of whether the Plaintiff was covered under the limited tort option or the full tort option, the record revealed that the only evidence in the case was that the Plaintiff testified at his deposition that he was unsure as to which coverage he selected.

The court ruled that, because the issue of the limited tort defense is considered an affirmative defense, Defendants bear the burden of proving a limited tort election. In this regard, the court cited to the case of Sanderson v. Cruz, U.S., 88 F. Supp. 2d 388, 392 (E.D. Pa. 2000). The court also noted that a Plaintiff’s uncertainty as to which coverage he or she may have selected is not determinative on the issue. In this regard, the court cited with a “see” signal Vaughan v. Williams, 725 EDA 2023, 2024 WL 1231352, at *3-5 (Pa. Super. 2024) (affirming trial court’s decision finding that Plaintiff elected limited tort as a matter of law, focusing its analysis on the signed tort election form and associated policy documents, as opposed to phone call transcripts and oral statements).

In this Opinion, the court noted that the Plaintiff’s decision to raise this limited tort election issue through a Motion In Limine rather than through an earlier a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, combined with the absence of the relevant insurance documents, rendered the resolution of this matter ill-time given that it was presented on the eve of trial. 

As such, the judge denied the Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine to have the Plaintiff deemed to be full tort as a matter of law.  Presumably, the defense was going to be permitted to present evidence a trial through an insurance representative as to the Plaintiff’s election of a limited tort choice.

In another decision of note in this Opinion, the court barred a Defendant in a rear-end motor vehicle accident from arguing at trial that the Plaintiff was not injured in the accident given that both parties had acknowledged, through expert testimony, that the Plaintiff had indeed sustained some form of injury.

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


Source: “Article – “Defendant Can’t Argue Rear-End Crash Didn’t Result In Injuries, Pa. Fed. Court Rules Citing Defense Expert Report” By Riley Brennan The Legal Intelligencer (July 30, 2025).

Source of image:  Photo by Niki Nikitaxnikin on www.pexels.com.

Court Dismisses Negligent Entrustment Claim Against Parents Relative to Use of Cell Phone by Child

In the case of JH v. Dunmore School District, No. 3:24-CV-1154 (M.D. Pa. Aug. 8, 2025 Munley, J.), Judge Julia K. Munley of the Federal Middle District Court of Pennsylvania addressed various Motions to Dismiss filed by different Defendants relative to a case involving allegations that certain middle school student allegedly recorded a minor Plaintiff who was on the autism spectrum, inside a bathroom stall at the school and then allegedly disseminating that video to other students who also allegedly shared the video with others.

Among the claims presented by the Plaintiffs were allegations of negligence entrustment and intentional infliction of emotional distress against the minor Defendants at issue and their parents. The negligent entrustment claim was that the parents had negligently entrusted a cell phone owned by the parents to their children.

The court granted in part and denied in part the request for a dismissal of the negligent entrustment claims asserted against the parents given that the Plaintiffs did not allege facts to support their conclusion that the parent Defendants knew or should have known that their children would use their cell phones in ways that would hurt people.

The court also noted that, based upon the facts alleged by the Plaintiff, which included references to school policy and state law, the Plaintiffs’ allegations actually support the proposition that the parent Defendants yielded control of the cell phones, or the use of the cell phones to the teachers and administrators when their children were at school. 

In this regard, the court pointed to the school district’s rules requiring students to refrain from utilizing their cell phone on the school ground during school hours. 

The court emphasized that the alleged negligent conduct of the students took place during the course of the school day and that there were no allegations that any of the minor Defendants in this action shared the video of the minor Plaintiff outside of the school day. 

The court in this matter did allow the Plaintiffs’ claims or intentional infliction of emotional distress to proceed against the parent Defendants.

The court otherwise dismissed a number of claims asserted against the school district and school officials but allow the Plaintiffs to file another Amended Complaint relative to the possible civil rights allegations under 42 U.S.C. §1983.

The court allowed the claims of punitive damages to remain in the case relative to the claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress.

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

Source of image:  Photo by Tracy Le Blanc on www.unsplash.com.