Plaintiff's Claims For Tortious Interference with a Dead Body Kept Alive

In the case of McGee v. Bowser, No. 838 EDA 2023 (Pa. Super. Dec. 30, 2024 Olson, J., Sullivan, J., and Bender, J.)(Op. by Olson, J.), the Superior Court affirmed in part and reversed in part a trial court’s sustaining of Preliminary Objections in a case involving a Plaintiff’s decedent being moved from his original gravesite without consent.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff pled that the Defendant’s conspired to move the decedent from his original gravesite without consent or notice. The Plaintiff also alleged that the disinterment permit had been improperly granted.

Reviewing the claims before it, the appellate court ruled that the Plaintiff had indeed stated a valid claim for tortious interference with a dead body under the elements noted in the Restatement §868.

However, the court found that the Plaintiff’s intentional infliction of emotional distress claim failed. The court noted that such a claim requires that a Plaintiff be present when the tort occurred.

However, the appellate court did allow the Plaintiff’s negligent infliction of emotional distress claim brought against the cemetery for breach of fiduciary duty to proceed given that that claim did not require a contemporaneous observation.

Relative to a civil conspiracy claim asserted by the Plaintiff, the court confirmed that a civil conspiracy claim is a derivative claim and that, given that some of the Plaintiff’s other substantive claims were reinstated, the civil conspiracy claim would likewise be allowed to proceed.

On the issue of the Plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages, the appellate court noted that such damages are permitted on a lesser standard of outrageousness in cases involving the mistreatment of corpses.

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 Scott Rodgerson on www.unsplash.com.

Eastern Federal District Court Judge Issues Rule 11 Sanctions Against Plaintiff's Counsel

 In the case of Shelton v. Chaudhry, No. 24-5657 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 27, 2025 McHugh, J.), Eastern Federal District Court Judge Gerald A. McHugh ripped a scathing Opinion meting out Rule 11 sanctions against a Plaintiff's counsel for repeated violations.

According to the decision, in this case arisining out of a motor vehicle accident, the Court faulted the Plaintiff's attorney for repeatedly filing a federal court Complaint rooted in diversity jurisdiction while, at the same time, pleading facts that established that such jurisdiction did not exist.

In his decision, Judge Hughes provides a thorough review of the current status of federal law in the context mandates imposed on attorneys under Rule 11 as well as when sanctions are warranted under that Rule.

In the end, the Court's sanctions imposed included a reprimand addressed to Plaintiff's counsel, the imposition of a $7,500 fine on the attorney, and the issuance of a directive that the attorney circulate the Court's Opinion to the other members of the Plaintiff's law firm at issue.

Anyone wishing to review this decision may click this LINK.

MANY MOCK TRIAL JURORS NEEDED FOR FIRST ROUNDS -- HOPING YOU MIGHT PLEASE VOLUNTEER

 

Superior Court Affirms Entry of Defense Verdict Even Though Defendant's Answer to Complaint Was Stricken Prior to Trial

In the case of Derbyshire v. Jefferson Frankford Hospital, No. 1409 EDA 2023 (Pa. Super. Dec. 20, 2024 Olson, J., Stabile, J. and Colins, J.) (Op. by Stabile, J.), the Superior Court found that a trial court judge did not commit any error in post-trial proceedings by denying a Plaintiff’s Motion for a New Trial limited to the issue of damages.

This matter arose out of a slip and fall event.

According to the Opinion, prior to the trial in the underlying matter, a motions court judge had stricken the Defendant’s Answer to the Complaint with prejudice due to untimeliness under Pa. R.C.P. 1029(b).

Later, another judge who presided over the trial, refused the Plaintiff’s request to direct the jury to find in the Plaintiff’s favor on the issues of negligence and causation and, instead, allowed these issues to go to the jury.

The jury then returned a verdict in favor of the Defendant on the issue of causation and awarded zero damages.

The Superior Court held that, while the Defendant’s failure to answer the Complaint resulted in a deemed admission of the facts alleged in the Plaintiff’s Complaint, at trial, the Plaintiff still had a burden to prove a legal causal connection between the Defendant’s alleged negligent conduct and the Plaintiff’s alleged damages. In its ruling, the Superior Court noted that, since the jury found the Defendant negligent, the Plaintiff suffered no prejudice from the trial court’s refusal to deem that issue admitted. The Superior Court therefore focused its attention on the issue of causation.

In ruling in the manner it did, the Superior Court found a 1984 decision from the Supreme Court of Texas to be persuasive. That court in Texas had concluded that a plaintiff who obtains a default judgment in a personal injury matter must still prove damages apart from the deemed admission of liability. 

Here, in this Derbyshire case, the court found that the striking of the Defendant’s Answer and New Matter resulted in a deemed admission of all facts but only an admission of “liability” by the Defendant. 

The Superior Court ruled that the Plaintiff still had to proceed to trial on the issue of damages and, in this regard, the Plaintiff had a burden to establish that the Defendant’s conduct caused the Plaintiff’s damages. 

As noted, in this case, the jury was not convinced that the Plaintiff’s alleged damages were related to the Defendant’s negligent conduct.

The Superior Court ruled that, based upon a review of the evidence in the record, it was within the jury’s prerogative to award zero damages.

Accordingly, the Superior Court ultimately ruled that the trial court did not err in denying the Plaintiff’s Post-Trial Motions seeking a new trial on damages.

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

Source: The Legal Intelligencer State Appellate Case Alert, www.Law.com (Jan. 14, 2025).

GROSS NEGLIGENCE: Court Denies Summary Judgment in Premises Case Involving Slip and Fall on Vomit

In the case of Johnson v. Penney, No. 2:22-CV-03665-RBS (E.D. Pa. Jan. 8, 2025 Surrick, J.), the court denied a Motion for Summary Judgment filed by the Defendant, J.C. Penney relative to a slip and fall event in a case in which the Plaintiff alleged that he slipped and fell on a substance he believed to be vomit while he was shopping at the Defendant store. 

According to the Opinion, just prior to the incident, the Plaintiff was walking through the children’s department of the store, primarily looking ahead while also noticing items on the surrounding display racks. He suddenly felt a slippery substance under his feet and slipped and fell.

The Plaintiff admitted that he did not see the slippery substance on the floor prior to his fall even though his view was unobstructed. The substance on the floor was described as being 1-2 feet in diameter and was a slightly brown color that was almost the same color as the floor. 

The Plaintiff testified that he was not sure that he would have seen the substance even if he had been looking down at the floor given the similarity in color between the substance and the floor. 

There were no warning signs around at the time that the Plaintiff fell.

The court also confirmed that the Defendant store conceded that it did not immediately clean up the substance once it was reported prior to the Plaintiff's fall. An employee of the store testified that she had informed a manager on duty multiple times that there was vomit on the floor prior to the Plaintiff’s fall. The store employee stated that she was advised by the manager that the priority at the time was addressing a leak in the ceiling. 

After the Plaintiff slipped and fell, the store employee reported the incident to her manager again, at which point the substance was cleaned up.

In this matter, the Defendant argued that the Plaintiff’s claims failed because the substance on the aisle floor was an open and obvious danger that the Plaintiff should have seen and avoided. The Plaintiff argued that genuine issues of material fact existed as to whether or not the substance was open and obvious condition.

The court denied the Motion for Summary Judgment and found that, drawing all inferences in a light most favorable to the non-moving party as required by the applicable standard of review, reasonable jurors could disagree as to whether or not, under the circumstances presented, the substance on the floor constituted an open and obvious danger.

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


Source: Article – “JCPenney Customer’s Slip-And-Fall From Bodily Substance Suit Best Left For a Jury to Decide, Judge Rules” by Riley Brennan of The Legal Intelligencer (Jan. 10, 2025).

Snowboarder's Estate Denied Recovery Under Skiier's Responsibility Act

In the case of Birl v. Shawnee Mountain, No. 3:22-CV-1598 (M.D. Pa. Jan. 6, 2025 Bloom, MAG. J.), the court entered summary judgment in favor of a Defendant’s ski resort after finding that the Skier’s Responsibility Act prevented the Plaintiffs from taking their case over injuries sustained by their son to trial.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiffs sued Shawnee Mountain Ski Resort with a paralysis suffered by the then 16 year old Plaintiff who struck a light pole while snowboarding. The Plaintiffs alleged that the pole was unguarded and improperly placed.

The court noted that the law recognizes that snowboarding is a dangerous activity. The court additionally noted that the law recognizes that riding a snowboard in a terrain park to perform tricks and jumps increases the risk of injury associated with that activity.

The court ruled that, even accepting the Plaintiffs’ version of the events, that is, that the course caused the minor Plaintiff’s loss of control and, ultimately, his collision with a off-trail obstacle, the court noted that this risk was inherent to the activity undertaken by the minor Plaintiff, which was snowboarding in a terrain park.

As such, the court entered summary judgment in favor of the ski resort.

Anyone wishing to review this case may click this LINK.  The Court's companion Order can be viewed HERE.

Source of image:  Photo by Allesandro Maculotti on www.unsplash.com.

PLEASE CONSIDER VOLUNTEERING TO BE A MOCK TRIAL JUROR FOR COMPETITION IN SCRANTON