Trial Court Urges Superior Court to Dismiss Plaintiff's Appeal for Failing to File a Concise Statement of Matters Complained of On Appeal

In the case of Becker v. Empire Holdings, LLP, LLC, No. 2024-CV-05339 (C.P. Bucks Co. June 12, 2025 Corr, J.), the trial court issued a Rule 1925 Opinion requesting the Superior Court to dismiss the Plaintiff’s appeal relative to the trial court’s sustaining of the Defendant’s Preliminary Objections to the Plaintiff’s Complaint.

This case arose out of issues that the Plaintiff had relative to repairs made to the Plaintiff’s Range Rover vehicle.

One of the Preliminary Objections sustained by the court resulted in the dismissal of the Plaintiff’s Complaint for lack of jurisdiction.

In its short Opinion, the trial court noted that the appeal by the Plaintiff should be dismissed because the Plaintiff failed to file his Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal. The trial court ruled that the Plaintiff had therefore waived all issues for appeal as a result.

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


Source: The Legal Intelligencer Common Pleas Case Alert, www.Law.com (Sept. 5, 2025).

SAVE THE DATE FOR A GOOD CAUSE!

 

Court Confirms Bus Operator Has No Obligation To Wait Until Passenger Sits Before Proceeding

In the case of Musser v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transp. Auth., May Term, 2023, No. 230502736 (C.P. Phila. Co. Jan. 22, 2025 Jacquinto, J.), the trial court issued a Rule 1925 Opinion detailing the reasons for its denial of the Plaintiff’s post-trial motions in a matter involving a Plaintiff who was injured when a SEPTA bus began to move before the Plaintiff had sat down as a result of which the Plaintiff allegedly fell.

The trial court concluded that its judgment should be affirmed where the trial court felt that it did not err in instructing the jury that, under Pennsylvania law, a bus operator has no obligation to wait until boarding passengers are seated before proceeding from a stop.

The jury in this matter concluded that the Plaintiff was 74% negligent, which resulted in a defense verdict.

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


Source: The Legal Intelligencer Common Pleas Case Alert, www.Law.com (June 11, 2025).

Source of image:  Photo by Cottonbro Studio on www.pexels.com.

Punitive Damages Claims Allowed To Proceed in Case Involving Fatal Trucking Accident at a Loading Dock

In the case of Feliciano v. Landstar Inway, Inc., No. 5:24-CV-00668-JMG (E.D. Pa. Aug. 15, 2025 Gallagher, J.), the court denied a trucking Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment on the punitive damages claims.

According to the Opinion, this fatality matter arises out of an incident during which the decedent died when he was struck by the Defendant’s truck and pinned against a loading dock at a warehouse. After suit was filed, the Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment the claims for punitive damages. The court allowed the punitive damages claims to move forward after finding that a reasonable jury could find that the Defendant employees acted with deliberate indifference in failing to prevent the accident from happening.

Reviewing the record, the court noted that, although the Defendant truck driver believed that he had fully engaged the brakes of the vehicle just prior to the accident, there was evidence that the Defendant driver did not engage the additional service brake while recognizing that the warning buzzer was going off indicating that the brakes may not have been activated and where that Defendant driver could not see where the Plaintiff was located. The court noted that, under such circumstances, a reasonable person could realize that someone could be significantly hurt in such a scenario. Accordingly, the court denied the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment.

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


Source – Article: “Estate Court Recoup Punitive Damages Following Tractor-Trailer Accident, Judge Rules,” By Riley Brennan of The Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Aug. 19, 2025).

Source of image - Photo by Elevate on www.pexels.com.

Federal Court Requires Pleading of Sufficient Facts to Support Claims of Punitive Damages

In the case of McKinney v. GM, LLC, No. 1:24-CV-00140-SPB (W.D. Pa. Aug. 28, 2025 Baxter, J.), the Western District Federal Court granted a partial Motion to Dismiss claims of punitive damages.

The court granted the Motion after finding that the Plaintiff failed to plead sufficient facts to support a punitive damages claim.

The court noted that recklessness that could support a punitive damages claim must involve more than claims of ordinary negligence. Rather, the conduct involved must be intentional and the risk substantially greater than that which is necessary for conduct to be negligent.

Here, the court found that the product liability Complaint contained no factual allegations identifying the nature of the alleged defect, how the Defendant alleged became aware of it, or what actions the Defendant failed to take in conscious disregard of that risk.

The court emphasized that punitive damages are to be considered an extreme remedy that are not available for conduct arising from mere inadvertence, mistake, or errors in judgment.

The court also noted that the Complaint failed to contain any factual allegations that even suggested that the Defendant acted with an evil motive or in conscious disregard of a known risk.

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.

LACKAWANNA PRO BONO ANNUAL GALA SET FOR NOVEMBER 6TH

 

IT'S THE LAST QUARTER....BRING YOUR CASE TO A CLOSE WITH CUMMINS MEDIATION

Has Tort Talk streamlined your research and saved you time?

Have you benefited from finding and downloading a case on Tort Talk you might not have otherwise found?  

Has a decision by Judge Nealon that you found on Tort Talk laid out the law for your Brief?

Has a case you found on Tort Talk helped you to win an argument (or at least gave you hope that you had a chance at prevailing)?

Hoping you have realized one or more of these benefits over the years from a case or two on Tort Talk.

For other benefits, including a favorable resolution of your cases to the great satisfaction of your clients, please consider scheduling a Mediation 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 in bad cases?

HERE'S A SAMPLING OF JUST SOME OF THE FIRMS

WHO HAVE 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