Crashworthiness Test Applied to Golf Cart in Accident Case

In the case of Suisi v. JH Global Services, Inc., No. 10604-2015, C.A. (C.P. Lawr. Co. Jan. 23, 2024 Hodge, J.), the court addressed issues arising out of injuries sustained by a Plaintiff during a golf cart accident.

According to the Opinion, the golf cart was designed by Defendant, JH Global, and sold to a licensed dealer. Prior to its sale, the golf cart was modified by the dealer with a lift kit designed and sold by another Defendant.

In this matter, the court addressed a Motion for Summary Judgment filed by the manufacturer of the golf cart. 

According to the Opinion, the accident occurred when the Plaintiff was driving the golf cart on a roadway when the components of the steering mechanism, which were altered by the lift kit, failed.  The Plaintiff crashed and the Plaintiff was thrown approximately thirty (30) feet from the golf cart.

The Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on the grounds that there was allegedly no support for a claim against JH Global as the designer of product that was impermissibly altered by a dealer and where the designer’s original parts were not the parts that failed during the course of the accident.

The Plaintiffs also subsequently filed a Motion for Summary Judgment asserting that the record should demonstrate that the Defendants should have had knowledge that their carts were being modified and sold by their dealers that the Defendant designer did not adequately monitor and reprimand those actions, and that there was no sufficient warning within the warranty itself to convey the dangerous potential results of those modifications. The Plaintiff additionally asserted that the design of the cart invited modifications without appropriate safety mechanisms.

The court applied a 3-factor test for a defective design claim: whether a product could be designed to be safer, whether a design failed to perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would expect when used as intended or in a reasonably foreseeable manner, and if the designed caused the injury, whether the Plaintiff could demonstrate that a challenged feature outweighs the risk inherent in the design.

The court also applied the crash worthiness of a motor vehicle test to the golf cart as a matter of first impression. 

In this regard, the court noted that the crash worthiness of a motor vehicle test required the Plaintiff to prove (1) that the design was defective and that an alternative, safer and practical design existed and could have been incorporated at that time, (2) the injuries the Plaintiff would have received had the alternative design been used, and (3) what injuries were attributable to the defective design.

Here, the court found that the Plaintiff could not identify or offer an available alternative cart design that would have prevented the Plaintiff’s injuries. The alleged defect was that the cart enabled modifications that it was constructed to handle. The court noted that he Defendant’s warranty instructions said that the cart should not be modified.

The court found that a design that permitted modification of a catastrophically flawed lift kit was unintended and unforeseeable. As such, the court found that the Defendant was not responsible for manfuracturing each golf cart to withstand modifications and noted that the Defendant made a golf cart with additional safety measures when it is lifted, but the original purchaser did not buy that model.

As such, the court found that the design defects alleged by the Plaintiff were without merit.

On the claim of an inadequate warning of the possible consequences of modifying the golf cart, the court stated that the Plaintiff was required to provide proof that the lack of warning rendered the cart unreasonably dangerous and that it was approximate cause of the injury. The court denied summary judgment on the failure to warn claim, finding that this claim presented issues to be resolved by the jury.

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


Source: Law.com: “The Legal Intelligencer Common Pleas Case Alert” (May 8, 2024).\

Source of image:  Photo by Cristina Ann Costello from www.Pexels.com.

Pro Se Plaintiff Allowed Right To Amend Claims

In the case of Raynor v. Comcast Corp., No. 24-1842 (E.D. Pa. May 6, 2024 Kearney, J.), the court addressed jurisdictional issues in a case filed by a pro se Virginia citizen who recently came to believe that he is God.

The Plaintiff swore that the 1998 film The Price of Egypt was the story of his life and that movie producers made the film without his permission. The Plaintiff sued Comcast Corporation and a movie studio under civil rights, copyright infringement and right to privacy claims.

The court found that the Plaintiff’s Complaint was deficient in many respects but allowed the Plaintiff leave of court to attempt an Amended Complaint to pled a basis for subject matter jurisdiction. The court also noted that, if the Plaintiff wishes to pursue a claim under civil rights law, more facts were required.

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

I send thanks to Attorney Walt McClatchy of the Philadelphia law firm of McClatchy Law for bringing this case to my attention.

Demurrers to Medical Malpractice Complaint Overruled

In the case of Polanco v. Lehigh Valley Health Network, Inc., No. 2023-CV-1001 (C.P. Lacka. Co. June 7, 2024 Nealon, J.), the court addressed various Preliminary Objections filed in a medical malpractice case.

This case involved a case brought by the parents of a child reportedly suffering from cerebral palsy and brain damage due to alleged medical malpractice by various Defendants.

The Defendants filed Preliminary Objections on various grounds including a demurrer to the parents’ vicarious liability claims, allegations of reckless conduct, and claims for punitive damages.

The hospital Defendant also raised challenges to the legal sufficiency of the parent’s vicarious liability claim due to the parents’ failure to identify the hospital’s agents by name and to specify their agency authority.

All of the Preliminary Objections asserted by the various Defendants were overruled by the court.

Generally speaking, the court found that the Plaintiff had alleged specific facts to support the claims presented. The court also found that the factual allegations in the Complaint clearly informed the various Defendants of the claims being asserted, summarize the key facts supporting those claims, and furnished adequate notice so as to enable the Defendant to file a responsive pleading.

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

Issues of Fact Results In Reversal of Entry of Summary Judgment in Medical Malpractice Case

In the case of Azaravich v. Wilkes-Barre Hospital Company, LLC, No. 44 MDA 2023 (Pa. Super. June 5, 2024 Lazarus, J., Nichols, J., and Stevens, J.) (Op. by Nichols, J.), the court reversed a summary judgment that was entered by the trial court by the Plaintiff in a medical malpractice case involving a suicide by the Plaintiff’s decedent.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff decedent was taken to the Wilkes-Barre General Hospital where he checked himself into the emergency room after calling the police and expressing suicidal thoughts. After evaluations by different medical providers, the decedent, during which one of which interactions, the decedent indicated that he did not have any intent to harm himself, and that he wanted outpatient treatment, the decedent was released. Unfortunately, two (2) days later, the decedent committed suicide.

The decedent’s estate filed claims for medical negligence against the Defendant hospital and other medical providers.

At the summary judgment stage at the trial court level, the court had granted the Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment and denied the Plaintiff’s Cross Motion for Summary Judgment.

On appeal, the Pennsylvania Superior Court noted that issues of fact existed on the claims presented such that the case should have been allowed to proceed to a jury.

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


Source: Article – “Superior Court Revives Medical Negligence Suit Against Wilkes-Barre General Hospital Following Discharged Patient’s Suicide,” By Riley Brennan of the Legal Intelligencer (www.law.com June 7, 2024).

Applicability of Jerk and Jolt Doctrine Addressed by Court

In the case of Thomas v. SEPTA, June Term, 2020 No. 1431 (C.P. Phila. Co. Feb. 7, 2024 Powell, Jr., J.), the court addressed the applicability of the “jerk and jolt” doctrine in a case involving a Plaintiff who fell on a SEPTA bus when the bus stopped abruptly and her leg was caught in a baby stroller that was in the aisle.

The court generally noted the jerk and jolt doctrine applies as an exception to sovereign immunity when an individual testifies that they were injured when a car or bus jerked suddenly or violently. Under this doctrine, the Plaintiff must show that the jerk or jolt had an extraordinarily disturbing effect on other passengers or that the manner or occurrence of the accident or its effect on the Plaintiff inherently established the unusual or extraordinary character of the jerk or jolt.

In this Rule 1925 Opinion addressed to the Superior Court, the trial court stated that, in this case, the Plaintiff testified that the stroller caused her to fall after the bus driver slammed on the brakes and the Plaintiff’s foot got caught in the stroller.

The trial court concluded that the jerk and jolt doctrine did not apply and that it was up to the jury to otherwise decide if SEPTA was negligent in deciding whether the bus was safe to operate with the aisle obstructed.

In its Rule 1925 Opinion, the trial court requested the Commonwealth Court to affirm its decision that the jerk and jolt doctrine did not apply and that the trial court had not abused its discretion in denying SEPTA’s Motions for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict entered by the jury.

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


Source: Law.com: “The Legal Intelligencer Common Pleas Alert” (May 15, 2024).

Plaintiff's Claim of Two Impacts Helps To Defeat Summary Judgment Motion in Chain Reaction Accident Case

In the case of Akbar v. Glover, No. 10572-CV-2023 (C.P. Erie Co. May 22, 2024 Ridge, J.), the court denied a Motion for Summary Judgment filed by a Defendant driver that was the last car at the end of a chain reaction accident.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff was rear-ended by Defendant in the car behind the Plaintiff. 

The second Defendant then came along and rear-ended the first Defendant. 

The Plaintiff alleged a chain reaction and asserted that the first Defendant was caused to hit the rear of the Plaintiff’s vehicle a second time after that first Defendant was rear-ended by the second Defendant. Both Defendants were named in the lawsuit.

The second Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment asserting that the Plaintiff did not show a prima facie case of that Defendant’s negligence. 

The second Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff admitted that he did not see the second Defendant's vehicle before the impact and that, therefore, the Plaintiff could not establish that there was a second collision with her vehicle caused by the second Defendant. That Defendant asserted that the fact that the Plaintiff allegedly “experienced” an alleged second impact was not enough.

The court denied the second Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. 

In doing so, the court pointed to the Plaintiff’s statement that she felt two (2) impacts. 

Moreover, the court noted that the first Defendant testified that there was no definitely no second impact caused solely by that first Defendant.

The record before the Court also showed that the second Defendant admitted that they did not know whether the collision with the first Defendant had caused the second impact with the Plaintiff's vehicle.

Finding that there were issues of fact to be decided by a jury, the judge denied the Motion for Summary Judgment.

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

I send thanks to Attorney Brandon R. Keller of the Pittsburgh law firm of Ainsman Levine, LLC for bringing this case to my attention.

Source of image:  Photo by Burak the Weekender on www.pexels.com.

Federal Court UIM Bad Faith Claim Dismissed Where Plaintiff Did Not Plead Sufficient Facts

In the case of Hampton v. Progressive Insurance Company, 2:24-CV-01011-MAK (E.D. Pa. May 21, 2024 Kearney, J.), the court granted a Motion to Dismiss a Plaintiff’s bad faith claims and claims under the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law in a UIM case.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff secured the $15,000.00 liability limits from the third party tortfeasor and then pursued this UIM claim.

After the UIM carrier offered $1,000.00 in settlement, the Plaintiff filed a breach of contract action that included claims for statutory bad faith and unfair trade practices claims.

The court ruled that the Plaintiff’s bad faith claim failed where the Plaintiff failed to plead sufficient facts alleging any unreasonable conduct by the carrier or any facts that would support an inference of unreasonableness with respect to the carrier’s settlement offer.

The court otherwise stated that the Plaintiff failed to identify specific actual omissions by the Defendant carrier that were unreasonable or indicative of bad faith. Rather, the Plaintiff only made conclusory allegations that the Defendant’s settlement offer below is UIM policy limits demonstrated bad faith. The court stated that the Plaintiff did not pled any specific facts with regards to how the Defendant carrier evaluated the UIM claim or any facts that would support an inference that the $1,000.00 settlement offer was unreasonable.

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


Source: Law.com, “The Legal Intelligencer Federal Case Alert” (June 13, 2024).

Source of image:   Photo by Mikhail Nilov on www.pexels.com.