Plaintiff Waived Issues At Trial that Were Raised in an Undecided Pre-Trial Motion in Limine

In its decision marked Non-Precedential in the case of Wingate v. McGrath, No. 2879 EDA 2023 (Pa. Super. April 10, 2025 Panella, P.J.E., Stabile, J., and Nichols, J.) (Op. by Panella, P.J.E.), the Superior Court reviewed various post-trial issues and confirmed that a pre-trial Motion In Limine filed by the Plaintiff that was not decided prior to trial and which was not revisited until after trial was waived.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff filed a Motion In Limine to exclude the Defendant’s causation expert. However, the trial court did not resolve that motion prior to trial.

The record confirmed that, during trial, the Plaintiff did not re-raise the issues from the pre-trial motion in limine until after testimony was heard and the jury had retired to deliberate.

When the issue was raised again at that point, the trial court held that the issues regarding the Defendant’s expert had been waived. However, after a defense verdict was handed down by the jury, the trial court granted the Plaintiff a new trial.

On appeal, the Superior Court rejected the Plaintiff’s argument that the Defendant had failed to properly preserve his argument that the Plaintiff had waived the issues regarding the defense expert.

The Pennsylvania Superior Court ruled that issues raised in an undecided pre-trial motion in limine must be re-raised at trial in order to be preserved. Here, the Plaintiff did not raise the issues again until after the relevant testimony was already in evidence. As such, the Superior Court held that the admissibility of the Defendant’s expert issue had been waived by the Plaintiff.

Accordingly, the Superior Court ruled that the trial court had erred by granting the Plaintiff a new trial on this issue after a defense verdict had been entered.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this Non-Precedential decision may click this LINK.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 Philadelphia office of the Reed Smith law firm for bringing this case to my attention.

TORT TALK TURNS 16 ON SUNDAY

 

Happy Birthday Tort Talk!

Tort Talk was started 16 years ago on May 4, 2009.

With nearly 2,000 email subscribers, over 4,300 blog posts, and over 6.4 million views to date, Tort Talk is still going strong.

Thank you for your tips on notable cases and for your readership.

STILL TIME TO REGISTER FOR LACKAWANNA PRO BONO'S GOLF TOURNAMENT AND CLE

 

Motion to Bifurcate Medical Malpractice Case Denied

In the case of Wolking v. Lindner, No. 3:23-CV-806 (M.D. Pa. April 14, 2025 Saporito, J.), the court denied a Motion to Bifurcate in a medical malpractice case.

In addressing the Motion to Bifurcate, Judge Joseph F. Saporito, Jr. of the Federal Middle District Court of Pennsylvania turned to F.R.C.P. 42(b), which allows a court to order a separate trial of one or more issues presented for convenience, to avoid prejudice, to expedite the case, or to further the interests of judicial economy.

The court in Wolking noted that four factors are to be considered: (1) whether the issues are significantly different from one another, (2) whether the issues require different witnesses, documents, and evidence, (3) whether the nonmoving party would be prejudiced by bifurcation, and (4) whether the moving party would be prejudiced if the request for bifurcation is denied.

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

Judge Saporito noted that bifurcation of trial is a matter of judicial discretion and should be viewed as the exception rather than the rule.

The court noted that a request for bifurcation solely on the basis of judicial economy alone is not sufficient to support an entry of an Order in favor of bifurcation.

Here, the court found that the contested issues of liability and damages were not significantly different, but rather were inherently intertwined. The contested issues in this case both depended upon the harm caused by the prescribed medication, which involved the same types of evidence to be presented to the jury on both the liability and damages issues presented.

As such, the court denied the Motion to Bifurcate the issues of liability and damages.

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 from Times Leader story.

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

Superior Court Affirms Dismissal of Case Due to Service of Process Issues

In the case of Green v. Farole, No. 1483 EDA 2024 (Pa. Super. April 14, 2025 Stabile, J., Bowes, J., and Kunselman, J.) (Op. by Stabile, J.), the Pennsylvania Superior Court issued its latest pronouncement on the law regarding proper service of process as set forth in Lamp v. Heyman and its progeny. In this case, the Superior Court affirmed the trial court’s sustaining of Preliminary Objections and dismissal of the Plaintiff’s Complaint due to service  of process issues.

In this case, the court found that the Plaintiff’s Complaint, which was filed on the last possible day before the expiration of the statute of limitations, but which was not properly and timely served as required by law, was barred by the statute of limitations.

The Superior Court noted that, under Lamp v. Heyman and the cases following that decision, a Plaintiff is required to make a diligent, timely, good faith effort to serve Defendants with original process.

In this decision, the court confirmed that violations of the rules of service of process can be pursued by a Defendant by way of Preliminary Objections.

In this case, the court found that the Plaintiff failed to ensure that original process was properly served within the required thirty (30) days. The Plaintiff also then violated the rules by engaging a private process server to complete service.

The Superior Court confirmed that the rules regarding proper service of original process must be strictly followed. The court reiterated a well-settled rule that the failure to perfect service is fatal to a lawsuit.

The Superior Court also reaffirmed the general rule of law that actual notice of a lawsuit by a Defendant does not excuse the failure of the Plaintiff to serve the Defendant with original process in accordance with the Rules of Civil Procedure.

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.

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.