Federal Court Addresses Section 1983 and Whistleblower Law Issues in Employment Law Case

In the case of Krug v. Bloomsburg University, No. 4:18-CV-1669 (M.D. Pa. March 11, 2025 Wilson, J.), the court denied the Defendant’s Motion for Judgment as a matter of law and a new trial following the entry of a verdict in favor of the Plaintiff in a §1983, Title VII, Title IX, Whistleblower Law and PHRC case.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff, a former Bloomburg University Dean, brought a lawsuit claiming that he faced retaliation and was fired for helping an administrative assistant file a sexual harassment report against another employee of the school. The Plaintiff prevailed at trial and the motions at issue followed.

After reviewing the pertinent law, Judge Wilson denied the motions.

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


I send thanks to Attorney Barry Dyller, Esquire of the Wilkes-Barre, PA law firm of Dyller & Solomon, LLC for bringing this case to my attention.

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Rules that NJ Transit is Entitled to Sovereign Immunity

In the case of Galette v. New Jersey Transit, No. 4 EAP 2024 (Pa. March 12, 2025) (Op. by Brobson, J.), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court addressed a denial of a Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant, New Jersey Transit, based upon a claim of interstate sovereign immunity.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff commenced a lawsuit against certain Defendants that included New Jersey Transit in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County.

The Plaintiff alleged that he was injured when a vehicle he was in was struck by a New Jersey Transit vehicle during an accident that occurred in Philadelphia.

After the lawsuit was filed, New Jersey Transit, as an instrumentality of the State of New Jersey, filed a Motion to Dismiss the suit and invoked interstate sovereign immunity.

The trial court denied the motion. On appeal to the Superior Court, the Superior Court affirmed the trial court’s decision after finding that New Jersey Transit was not instrumentality or arm of the State of New Jersey and, therefore, was not entitled to sovereign immunity protections.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed and found that New Jersey Transit was indeed an arm of the State of New Jersey and, therefore, an instrumentality of that state. The court noted the statutory classification of New Jersey Transit as an instrumentality of the State of New Jersey, the degree of control that the state exercised over New Jersey transit, and the Defendant’s core function of providing public transportation, which is a governmental function.

The case was remanded for further proceedings.

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


I send thanks to Attorney Michael Cognetti and Kristin Mutzig for bringing this case to my attention.

SAVE THE DATE FOR THE LACKAWANNA PRO BONO GOLF TOURNAMENT (AND MY CLE AT THE SAME)

 

Court Addresses Proper Pleading of Negligent Entrustment Claim in a Motor Vehicle Accident Case

In the case of Uslu v. Evans, No. 24-CV-5482 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 31, 2025 Sitarski, Mag. J.), the court granted a Motion to Dismiss a negligent entrustment claim in a motor vehicle accident case.

In this case, the court provided a thorough review of the current status of the law on the proper pleading of a negligent entrustment claim.   

The court noted that a Plaintiff may not assume that any entrustment of a vehicle was negligent. Rather, a Complaint must allege specific facts showing that, at the time the vehicle was entrusted to the driver, the Defendant vehicle owner knew, or reasonably should have known, that the driver was incapable of safely operating the vehicle or was otherwise unlikely to do so.

The court found that the allegations in the Plaintiff’s Complaint in this case were generic. The court otherwise noted that whether or not a Defendant concedes vicarious liability for negligent entrustment has nothing to do with whether the claim was properly pled.

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


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

Source of image:  Photo by Thirdman on www.pexels.com.

NEED CLE CREDITS? CHECK OUT THIS UPCOMING EVENT (LIVE AND VIRTUAL)

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.

 

Link To Decision Corrected for Yesterday's Post: Court Rules that Plaintiff Can't Wing It In Terms of Expert Testimony

The Link to the court decision in yesterday's post has been fixed.  Sorry about that error.  You can view yesterday's Tort Talk post here at this LINK and click the corrected Link to the case therein.

Thanks for reading Tort Talk.

Court Rules That Plaintiff Can't Wing It In Terms of Expert Testimony

In the case of Boruch v. Catty Corner Neighborhood Pub & Pie, 2025 Pa. D. & C. Dec. Lexis 6 (C.P. Leh. Co. Jan. 2, 2025 Reichley, J.), the court granted summary judgment in an alleged food poisoning case involving Buffalo Wings.

In this case, the court noted that the Plaintiff’s expert’s report only addressed the fact of the happening of the alleged food poisoning and did not contain a causation opinion linking the Plaintiff’s illness to the Plaintiff’s consuming the Defendant’s food.

The court recognized that, absent an obvious causal relationship, a personal injury Plaintiff must have expert testimony to establish causation. 

The court generally agreed that such an obvious relationship can arise from an immediate and direct injury or as a natural probable result following alleged negligence.

However, the court found that becoming ill several hours after consuming food is not such a relationship of cause and effect as noted above. Here, the court noted that the causal connection would require guesswork and/or conjecture on the part of a jury.

Given the failures of the Plaintiff’s expert report, summary judgment was granted.

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


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

Source of image:  Photo by Sergio Arreola on www.pexels.com.