Motion For Summary Judgment Denied in Zipline Accident Case

In the case of Witkowski v. Hellerick’s Family Farm, Inc., No. 230900999 (C.P. Phila. Co. Sept. 18, 2025), the trial court issued a Rule 1925 Opinion requesting the Superior Court to affirm its decision denying a Motion for Summary Judgment in a premises liability case.

According to the Opinion, this matter arises out of a fatal accident that occurred when the Plaintiff died after experiencing difficulties on a zipline course at the Defendant’s farm.

Prior to the incident, the Plaintiff has signed liability waivers acknowledging the risks involved in the activity.

After the accident, the Plaintiff filed a negligence suit in which recklessness was alleged as well.

The Defendant farm moved for summary judgment arguing that the signed waivers and the Agritourism Activity Protection Act shielded the Defendants from liability.

According to the Opinion, the Agritourism Activity Protection Act limits liability for agritourism providers unless gross negligence or recklessness is proven.

The court found that issues of fact with regards to whether the Defendant’s conduct constituted gross negligence or recklessness, which would negate the protections of the waivers and the act existed in the case presented. As such, the court noted that the issues should be permitted to proceed to a jury.

The trial court otherwise noted that the appeal should be dismissed on procedural grounds as its order did not meet the criteria for an appealable Order under Pennsylvania law given that the Order at issue was not a final Order.

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


Source: The Legal Intelligencer Common Pleas Case Alert, www.Law.com (Jan. 8, 2026).

Trial Court Addresses Whether a Certificate of Merit is Required

In the case of Muniz-Colon v. Friends Hospital, Sept. Term, 2025, No. 0068500065 (C.P. Phila. Co. Jan. 12, 2026 Hill, J.), the court addressed the issue of when a Certificate of Merit may be required for a professional negligence case.

According to information gathered on this case, the Plaintiff in this matter was allegedly brought to the hospital where he was allegedly assaulted and apparently knocked unconscious by the staff as he was allegedly being admitted to the facility on a 302 admission.

In response to the lawsuit filed, the Defendants all filed Motions for Non Pros due to the failure of the Plaintiff to present a Certificate of Merit under the MCARE statute.

Plaintiff’s counsel filed a Motion under Pa. R.C.P. 1042.6(c) for a determination as to whether a Certificate of Merit was required or not.

In its decision, the court ruled that the alleged assault may have indeed occurred in the course of a professional relationship given that it occurred during the admissions process. However, the court ruled the allegations in the Complaint as involving alleged negligence that did not involve medical judgment. 

Accordingly, the court ruled that no Certificate of Merit was required for the case presented.

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


I send thanks to Attorney Robin Feeney of the Philadelphia law firm of Matkoff, Shengold, Berman, Goodnow & Associates, P.C. for bringing this case to my attention.

Mock Trial Jurors Still Needed For Tomorrow's Lackawanna County Mock Trials -- Please Consider Volunteering

 

Link to Copy of Hagedorn Decision Reviewed in Yesterday's Tort Talk Post.

Yesterday's Tort Talk blog post reviewed the case of Hagedorn v. Rick’s Backhoe Service, Inc., No. 2018-CV-3723 (C.P. Lacka. Co. Jan. 9, 2026 Nealon, J.), which involved a decision on a Motion for Bifurcation.  The Link to the post was not complete.

Here is the LINK to the above decision.  Sorry for any inconvenience.

Thank you for reading Tort Talk.

Motion To Bifurcate Motor Vehicle Accident Lawsuit Involving Bad Injuries Denied

In the case of Hagedorn v. Rick’s Backhoe Service, Inc., No. 2018-CV-3723 (C.P. Lacka. Co. Jan. 9, 2026 Nealon, J.), the court denied a Defendant’s Motion to Bifurcate the liability and damages issues presented in a motor vehicle accident case.

According to the Opinion, this matter arose out of a motor vehicle accident during which the Plaintiff was operating a motorcycle.  The Plaintiff and the Defendant driver allegedly engaged in road rage in a construction zone and that, during the interaction, the Defendant driver negligently and recklessly struck the Plaintiff’s motorcycle, resulting in the accident.

In seeking to bifurcate the liability and damages issues presented, the Defendants asserted that they were proceeding on a strong liability defense. 

The Defendants also asserted that, given the severity of the injuries sustained by the Plaintiff, there was a strong likelihood that the jury’s decision on liability would be tainted by sympathy for the Plaintiff if the jury was to hear the damages evidence and the severity of the damages alleged. 

The defense further argued that the bifurcation would expedite the action by allowing for a clear presentation of the negligence issues to the jury without confusing the issues relative to the injuries and damages claims presented.

In opposition, the Plaintiff asserted, in part, that the testimony of the treating physicians would explain, in part, the mechanics of the Plaintiff’s injuries which could also provide relevant context on how the collision actually occurred and what the forces involved were. The Plaintiff additionally asserted that a bifurcation of the trial would not serve the interests of judicial economy as it would cause a lengthier trial and additional expenses.

Judge Terrence R. Nealon of the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas reviewed the Motion to Bifurcate under the standard of review set forth in Pa. R.C.P. 213(b). 

In reviewing the law, Judge Nealon noted that appellate decisions indicated that cases should only be bifurcated where the separation of the issues would facilitate the orderly presentation of evidence and would support judicial economy. Bifurcation is typically only granted where the issues of liability and damages are “totally independent.” See Op. at 4 [citation omitted].

Here, the court found that bifurcation of the trial would not promote convenience or judicial economy. The court additionally found that the issues of liability and damages were not totally independent from one another based upon the information in the record before the court.

Judge Terrence R. Nealon
Lackawanna Co.

In this regard, Judge Nealon noted that the Plaintiff indicated that his treating physicians would testify regarding the mechanics of his injuries, which could provide context regarding the dynamics of the impact, which could bear on the issue of how the accident occurred. Judge Nealon also noted that proof of that nature indicates that certain evidence on liability and damages is intermingled. 

The court also noted that the defense had not established that bifurcation was necessary to actually avoid prejudice. In terms of any concern that the jury might be sympathetic towards the Plaintiff due to the nature of the Plaintiff’s injuries, the court noted that the jury would be furnished with instructions from the court admonishing the jury that they should not allow sympathy or emotion to influence their deliberations or verdict.

Judge Nealon additionally cited to Pennsylvania Supreme Court precedent confirming that the courts may assume that juries will follow judicial instructions faithfully.

Based upon its review of the matter, the court found that bifurcation of the liability and damages issues into separate trials pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 213(b) was not proper in this matter. Accordingly, the Motion was denied.

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

Mock Trial Jurors Needed For First Round of Lackawanna County Competition Set for Next Wednesday - Please Consider Volunteering

 

Third Circuit Addresses Strict Liability Claims in Alleged Food Poisoning Case

In its unpublished decision in the case of Kovalev v. Lidl US, LLC, No. 24-3224 (3rd Cir. Nov. 12, 2025 Hardiman, J., Matey, J., Chung, J.) (per curiam) (unpublished), the appellate court affirmed the entry of summary judgment and other motions after finding that the thirty (30) day removal to federal court deadline begins when the Defendant learns that the case is indeed removable.

According to the record before this court, the Plaintiff had made a demand in excess of the diversity jurisdictional amount.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff claimed food poisoning from eating bread from a loaf of bread he had purchased.   

The court otherwise noted that the Plaintiff failed to establish that the alleged defective condition existed at the time of the sale, thereby precluding any strict liability claims. The court also found that the Plaintiff did not have any evidence to support the allegation that the alleged defect caused his claimed injuries.

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


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

More Attorneys In Trouble for AI Hallucinations in Citations in Brief

In the case of Lifetime Well LLC v. Ibspot.com, Inc., No. 2:25-CV-05135-MAK (E.D. Pa. Jan. 26, 2026 Kearney, J.), a federal court judge sanctioned two (2) Pennsylvania and New York based attorneys after the court identified numerous artificial intelligence hallucinations in briefs. The court issued both non-monetary and monetary sanctions.

In its Opinion, the court noted that the two (2) attorneys failed to thoroughly review a Brief that they both signed and filed. According to the Opinion, a law clerk in the law office had allegedly drafted the Brief utilizing AI. The court found that the conduct of the attorneys was in violation of Federal Rule 11.

The court felt that sanctions were necessary in order to deter other attorneys from repeating such conduct.

Given that both attorneys had taken steps to remedy their mistakes, the court declined to refer the attorneys to the disciplinary board.

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

Source: Fed. Judge Sanctions Two Attorneys Over AI Hallucinations, Declines Disciplinary Referral By Riley Brennan of The Legal Intelligencer (Jan. 26, 2026).

Source of image:  Photo by Numan Ali on www.unsplash.com.

Accidental Shooting From One Vehicle To Another Found To Involve "Use" of a Motor Vehicle

In the case of Allmerica Financial Benefit Ins. Co. v. Hunt, No. 2:24-CV-02767 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 15, 2025 Weilheimer, J.), the court denied Motions for Judgment on the Pleadings filed by two (2) UIM carriers in a case in which the two (2) automobile insurance companies were attempting to avoid having to pay underinsured motorists (UIM) coverage after an accidental shooting while the vehicle was at a red light.

This matter arose out of an accidental shooting that occurred between two drivers at a red light. One driver was attempting to unload a gun he had taken out of his glove compartment. The gun accidentally went off and struck an individual in the adjacent car, resulting in fatal injuries to that person.

The family of the decedent recovered the liability limits from the tortfeasor’s coverage and then turned to seek UIM coverage.

The UIM carrier filed suit, arguing that the shooting did not result from the “use” of a vehicle as required under the terms of that policy.

The court held that the policy language contained in the UIM policies conflicted with Pennsylvania’s Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law (MVFRL) because it attempted to impose a stricter, proximate cause standard for UIM coverage instead of Pennsylvania’s broader standard of review.

The court wrote that, in close or doubtful insurance coverage cases, the law requires judges to err on the side of the insured.

The court additionally noted that, while insurers should not be considered to always be on the hook in terms of coverage because of their perceived ability to bear the cost of paying on the policy, public policy dictates that when there is a “tie” on the positions put forth by the UIM carrier and the insured on a coverage dispute, the court should err in favor of finding coverage.

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


Source: Article – “Pa Federal Judge Rules Auto Insurers Can’t Dodge UIM Coverage In Fatal Stoplight Shooting Case,” By Tristin Hoffman of the Legal Intelligencer (Jan. 2,2 026).

Senior Judge Minora Addresses Permissible Scope of Pre-Complaint Discovery Addressed to an Insurance Company in a Bad Faith Claim

In the case of Minooka Pastry Inc. v. Erie Insurance, No. 2024-CV-4077 (C.P. Lacka. Co. Jan. 15, 2026), Judge Carmen D. Minora of the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas addressed pre-Complaint discovery issues in a bad faith and breach of contract action brought against an insurance carrier.

According to the Opinion, this matter arose out of a claim presented by the Minooka Bakery to Erie Insurance for water damage sustained the interior of the property during a windstorm. After Erie denied the claim, the Minooka Bakery was seeking to commence a multi-count lawsuit against Erie, including causes of action for bad faith, breach of contract, and violation of Pennsylvania’s Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law.

To assist it in the preparation of a Complaint, the Minooka Bakery served upon Erie Insurance written discovery requests. In response, Erie objected to the same but otherwise independently provided some materials along with a privilege log.

This matter came before the court on the Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Pre-Complaint Discovery under Pa. R.C.P. 4003.8. The Plaintiff asserted that it was still in need of additional information and documentation despite the materials produced by Erie Insurance. The carrier asserted that the materials it turned over were sufficient.

In the end, the court granted in part and denied in part the Motion to Compel.

In so ruling, the court noted that, because the Plaintiff intends to assert a bad faith claim against its carrier, an expansion of the scope of pre-Complaint discovery was warranted given that that particular cause of action requires the Plaintiff to present clear and convincing evidence that the carrier did not have a reasonable basis for denying benefits under the policy and that the carrier knew, or recklessly disregarded, its alleged lack of a reasonable basis in denying the claim.

Senior Judge Carmen D. Minora
Lackawanna County 

Judge Minora noted that the second prong of this test requires a demonstration of a heightened level of intent on the part of the carrier, thereby making inquiry into certain areas, “such as past practices and reserve information,” more likely accessible for purposes of pre-Complaint discovery.

Keeping in mind that the burden upon the Plaintiff to assert a bad faith claim sufficient to defeat any Preliminary Objections for lack of specificity, and also considering the discovery sought “will not cause unreasonable annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, burden or 

expense” under Pa. R.C.P. 4003.8(a), the court overruled the carrier’s objections, except those objections asserted with respect to privilege material. In this regard, the court reviewed the carrier’s privilege log and agreed with the carrier’s position with respect to those objections.

The court more specifically noted that, in making this ruling, it was specifically determined that “guidebooks, training manuals, non-privilege communications, reserve information, comparative claim data and regulatory filings” were within the permissible scope of pre-Complaint discovery in this matter. The court did impose a time limitation of not to exceed three (3) years prior to the date of loss relative to the scope of the information required to be produced.

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


I send thanks to Attorney Paul Walker of Walker Law in Clarks Summit, Pennsylvania for bringing this case to my attention.

U.S. Supreme Court Decision Ruling that Delaware Rule Requiring Certificate of Merit for Professional Liability Claims Has Implications In Pennsylvania Matters

In the United State Supreme Court case of Berk v. Choy, No. 24-440 (U.S. Jan. 20, 2026) (Op. by Barrett, J.), the United States Supreme Court held that a Delaware law requiring a Plaintiff suing for medical malpractice to provide an affidavit from a medical professional attesting to the merit of the claims presented in the law suit conflicts with valid Federal Rule of Civil Procedure and, as such, does not apply in federal court proceedings.

According to commentators, this United States Supreme Court decision can be read as establishing that Pennsylvania's requirements for a Certificate of Merit in professional negligence in state court matters would not apply in the federal courts of Pennsylvania.

As such, these commentators have suggested that, in those cases where a plaintiff can establish diversity jurisdiction in order to get into federal court, those plaintiffs may opt to proceed in federal court where they need not secure and produce a Certificate or Merit before proceeding with a professional negligence claim, such as a medical malpractice claim or a legal malpractice claim.   

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

I send thanks to Attorney Thomas J. Foley, III of the Foley Law Firm in Scranton, PA for bringing this decision to my attention.

Source of image:  Photo by Fine Photographics on www.pexels.com.

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Reviews, in Part, Ability of a Party To Proceed on A Cause of Action Based on Spoliation of Evidence

In the case of Erie Insurance Exchange v. United Services Auto, No. 19 WAP 2024 (Pa. Jan. 21, 2026) (Op. by Donohue, J.), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court addressed the issue of whether one carrier had a claim against another carrier under and allegation of promissory estoppel due to the failure to preserve evidence pertinent to the damages claims presented in a property damage subrogation claim.

According to the Opinion, this matter involved a fire that occurred at an auto repair shop, resulting in damages to the property and several vehicles. 

The insurance company for the property paid out damages and then sought reimbursement from those parties allegedly responsible. The insurer who brought the lawsuit suspected that a specific vehicle, insured by another insurance company, was the source of the fire.  As such, the Plaintiff insurance company requested that the vehicle in question be preserved for further investigation. 

Despite assurances that the vehicle would be preserved, the vehicle was instead sold at a salvage auction, thereby eliminating the possibility of further examination of the vehicle and hindering the Plaintiff’s potential claims against the other parties.  The Plaintiff insurance company filed suit based, in part, on the other insurance company's failure to preserve evidence as requested.

The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the Defendant, concluding that the promissory estoppel claim was, in substance, a claim for negligence spoliation of evidence, which was a cause of action not recognized in Pennsylvania.

The trial court also noted that subrogation principles did not allow recovery because the Defendant had not caused the original property loss.

On appeal, the Superior Court, sitting en banc, reversed and found that the facts might support a promissory estoppel claim. The Superior Court also felt that the trial court erred in dismissing the Complaint on grounds of speculative damages and unrecognized causes of action.

Further up the appellate ladder, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that, as subrogee, the Plaintiff insurance company’s rights were limited to recovery from the party responsible for the original loss and, because that Defendant did not cause the fire, no right of recovery existed. As such, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court vacated the Superior Court’s erroneous decision, and reinstated the trial court’s Order in favor of the Defendant.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of the Majority's decision may click this LINK.

Justice Brobson's Concurring and Dissenting Opinion can be viewed HERE.

Justice Dougherty's Dissenting Opinion can be viewed HERE.


Source: Justia Daily Opinion Summaries, www.justia.com (Jan. 22, 2026).

WATCH OUT FOR THIS PITFALL WITH DEADLINES

On December 24, 2025, the U.S. Postal Service implemented new procedures for dating mail.  As of that date and going forward, the Post Office will postmark letters and packages with the date they are processed at the postal facility rather than the date that they are dropped off in the mailbox as was the case in the past. 

This shift in procedure could affect whether time-sensitive mail is considered to be on time.

Commentators have recommended that, if your mail is time-sensitive in this regard, you should walk the mail into the post office and request a manual postmark to ensure that the postmark date matches the day you mailed the item.  You can also request a certificate of mailing.

Source of image:  Photo by Anthony Acosta on www.pexels.com.

Please Consider Signing Up As a Mock Trial Juror for Lackawanna County Competition

 

Summary Judgment Denied in Federal Court Snow and Ice Slip and Fall Case

In the case of Spa Resort, L.P., No. 3:24-CV-0796 (M.D. Pa. Jan. 9, 2026 Saporito, J.), the court denied the Defendant resort’s Motion for Summary Judgment in a slip and fall case.

The Defendant landowner argued that the hills and ridges doctrine applied because the Plaintiff allegedly slipped and fell due to icy conditions that resulted from snowfall on the day of the incident.

In opposition, the Plaintiffs argued that the Plaintiff did not slip and fall due to icy conditions caused by the snowstorm, but rather, because the Defendants’ driveway was improperly maintained and repaired such that the hills and ridges doctrine did not apply.

The court ultimately concluded that questions of fact remained as to whether the hills and ridges doctrine applied to shield the property owner from liability regarding the allegedly slippery conditions on the premises.

Judge Joseph F. Saporito, Jr.
M.D. Pa.

In his decision, Judge Saporito provided a detailed review of the current status of the law in Pennsylvania regarding the hills and ridges doctrine.

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


Source: Article – “Jury To Decide If Spa Resort Can Be Liable Under ‘Hills and Ridges’ Doctrine In Slip-And-Fall Case,” By Riley Brennan of The Legal Intelligencer (Jan. 12, 2026).

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Finds It Cannot Reach Question of Validity of Uber's Arbitration Clause

In the case of Chilutti v. Uber, No. 58 EAP 2024 (Pa. Jan. 21, 2026) (Op by Brobson, J.), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court addressed a request by Uber to refer a personal injury civil litigation matter to arbitration.

According to the Opinion, a woman who uses a wheelchair sued Uber Technologies, Inc. and others after an incident in which an Uber driver failed to provide her with a seat belt while transporting her in a wheelchair-accessible vehicle, causing her to fall and sustain injuries.

The Plaintiff filed a negligence cause of action in court. Uber responded by filing a Petition to Compel Arbitration, arguing that the Plaintiffs had agreed to arbitrate their claims when they enrolled in Uber’s service.

At the trial court level, the trial court granted Uber’s Petition and ordered the parties to proceed to Arbitration.

At the Superior Court level, the Superior Court, sitting en banc, reversed and held that there was valid agreement to arbitrate and remanded for further proceedings.

In this decision, the Pennsylvania Supreme court first reviewed whether an Order compelling Arbitration and staying trial proceedings is an immediately appealable collateral Order. The Supreme Court held that such an Order does not meet the requirements for a collateral Order because the issue can be reviewed after the entry of a final judgment and, as such, did not result in irreparable loss if the judicial review is postponed. 

Accordingly, the Supreme Court vacated the Superior Court’s decision and remanded the case back to the trial court with instructions on how to proceed.

In light of this decision, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court did not address the issue of the validity of the Uber Arbitration Agreement or the merits of whether Arbitration could be compelled in cases involving Uber.

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


Source: Justia Daily Opinion Summaries, www.justia.com (Jan. 22, 2026).4

Source of image:  Photo by Tingey on www.unsplash.com.