In this matter, the Complaint contained multiple counts that each adopted all of the allegations of all preceding Counts. The Complaint also asserted multiple claims against multiple Defendants without specifying which of the Defendants were more specifically responsible for which alleged acts or omissions. The court found that the Complaint did not allow for an understanding as to which claims were brought against which of the Defendants.
In its decision, the court separately reaffirmed the Pennsylvania law that holds that a Defendant hiring an independent contractor is not liable for the injuries sustained by that independent contractor’s employees from conditions that were equally obvious to the independent contractor and its employees.
Here, on the liability issues pled, the court found that the allegations in the Complaint did not establish any superior knowledge on the part of the Defendant at issue, any peculiar risk, or any retained control. Rather, the court found the allegations to be legal conclusion not supported by any specific facts.
Lastly, the court affirmed the general rule of law that, given that the Plaintiff’s estate had obtained a worker’s compensation recovery, the estate was not permitted to sue the decedent’s employer in tort.
In its decision, the court separately reaffirmed the Pennsylvania law that holds that a Defendant hiring an independent contractor is not liable for the injuries sustained by that independent contractor’s employees from conditions that were equally obvious to the independent contractor and its employees.
Here, on the liability issues pled, the court found that the allegations in the Complaint did not establish any superior knowledge on the part of the Defendant at issue, any peculiar risk, or any retained control. Rather, the court found the allegations to be legal conclusion not supported by any specific facts.
Lastly, the court affirmed the general rule of law that, given that the Plaintiff’s estate had obtained a worker’s compensation recovery, the estate was not permitted to sue the decedent’s employer in tort.
The court did allow the Plaintiff an opportunity to file a more specific Amended Complaint.
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.
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 Wesley Tingey on www.unsplash.com.