LACKAWANNA PRO BONO GALA SET FOR NOVEMBER 6, 2025

 

The Bus Stops Here: Trial Court Finds Venue Proper in Philadelphia Based on Busing Company's Defendant's Periodic Contacts in the County

Philadelphia Skyline

In the case of Warren v. Heagy, No. 240100294 (C.P. Phila. Co. May 2025 Anders, J.), the court issued a Rule 1925 Opinion requesting the Superior Court to affirm the trial court’s Order overruling the Defendant’s Preliminary Objections that Philadelphia County was an improper venue for the case.

According to the Opinion, this matter involved a motor vehicle accident during which a bus owned by the Defendant bus company collided with the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

The Defendants asserted in Preliminary Objections that the Defendant bus company had no physical presence in Philadelphia County, did not derive any revenue from customers located in Philadelphia County, and does not perform acts or maintain contacts in Philadelphia County sufficient to satisfy the quality-quantity tests for venue.

The court overruled the Preliminary Objections after noting that the record revealed that the Defendant bus company is in the business of transporting students to and from school and activities, including transporting students into Philadelphia County for purposes of activity such as field trips. It was noted that over the years, the business company had transported students into Philadelphia County about 10 times during one school year and 10 times during another school year, and 23-30 times on another recent school year.

After reviewing the law regarding the quality-quantity tests for proper venue, the court ruled that the evidence before it demonstrated that the Defendant regularly conducted business in Philadelphia County.

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

Source: “The Legal Intelligencer Common Pleas Case Alert,” www.Law.com (July 2, 2025).

PA Supreme Court Issues Interim Policy On Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence By Judicial Officers And Court Personnel (Effective Dec. 8, 2025)

Here is a LINK to the interim policy that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has issued for judges and court personnel who want to use AI.

The policy allow for judges and court personnel to utilizes AI for summarizing documents, conducting preliminary legal research, and drafting initial versions of documents.

These rules which are identified as the “Interim Policy On The Use Of Generative Artificial Intelligence By Judicial Officers And Court Personnel" goes into effect on December 8, 2025.

It is anticipated that, in the near future, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court may also come out with rules to guide attorneys on the proper of AI in the practice of law relative to any filings with the courts.

Source: Article – “Pa. High Court Allow Judges, Personnel To Use AI For Document Summary, Preliminary Legal Research” By Max Mitchell of the Legal Intelligencer (Sept. 9, 2025).

MEDIATION SUCCESS TIP FROM CUMMINS MEDIATION SERVICES

 

 TIP TO IMPROVE CHANCES 

FOR SUCCESS AT MEDIATION:

TRUST THE MEDIATOR TO KEEP IN CONFIDENCE WHAT YOU WANT KEPT IN CONFIDENCE

WITH THAT TRUST, BE CANDID WITH THE MEDIATOR ON YOUR SETTLEMENT POSITION

THIS WILL HELP THE MEDIATOR TO FRAME AND PUSH THE NEGOTIATIONS IN THE OTHER ROOM 

Trial Court Denies Various Motions For Summary Judgment in a Medical Malpractice Case

In the case of Leber v. Frattali, No. 2023-CV-1442 (C.P. Lacka. Co. 2025 Powell, J.), the court addressed fifteen (15) pre-trial motions presented by the defense, which included fourteen (14) Motions for Partial Summary Judgment and one (1) Motion for Summary Judgment in a wrongful death and survival action arising out of a medical malpractice claim.

Overall, the court found that genuine issues of material fact prevented the court from entering any judgments.

In particular, the court rejected the defense claims that the Plaintiff’s expert reports were insufficient to establish negligence. The court stressed that issues of the credibility of the experts and the differing interpretations of risk models were for the jury to resolve, not the court on summary judgment.

The court additionally noted that alleged systemic negligence, including lack of training, inadequate policies, and supervisory failures, could all serve to support claims of corporate negligence and constructive notice.

In the end, the court reiterated that there were issues of fact that prevented the entry of summary judgment on the claims presented. Accordingly, all defense Motions for Summary Judgment and Partial Summary Judgment were denied.

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

Plaintiff Wins Denial of Summary Judgment Motion Without Even Filing a Response

 

In the case of Dunkel v. Dallago, No. S-1335-CV-2022 (C.P. Schuly. Co. Sept. 5, 2025 Burke, J.), the court denied a Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment in a motor vehicle accident case in which the Defendant asserted that it should be granted summary judgment in light of the Plaintiff’s failure to produce any expert medical testimony on the issues of causation.  

The Plaintiff, who was represented by counsel, failed to file any response whatsoever to the Motion for Summary Judgment. The court still denied the Motion for Summary Judgment after finding that it had the discretion to excuse this failure and otherwise rule upon the Motion.

According to the Opinion, this matter arose out of a motor vehicle accident as a result of which the Plaintiff alleged personal injuries.

Relative to the defense argument that it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law given the Plaintiff’s failure to produce expert medical testimony to support the Plaintiff’s burden of proof on causation, the court referenced the exception to the law generally requiring such expert testimony. The court noted that, under that exception, where there is an obvious causal relationship between an accident and an injury, the requirement of expert testimony may be excused. The court noted that an obvious causal relationship can be found to exist where the injuries are either an “immediate and direct” or the “natural and probable” of the alleged negligent act.

The court found that there remained factual issues in this regard supported the court's denial of the request for the entry of summary judgment.

Although the Plaintiff never filed a Response to the Motion, the court also went on to note that there were other genuine issues of material fact presented in the case.  The court noted that the Plaintiff claimed that the Defendant was negligent and the Defendant not only denied negligence in its pleadings but also asserted contributory negligence against the Plaintiff. The court also noted sua sponte that there were other issues likely to be raised at the time of trial, including the speed of the Defendant’s vehicle, whether the Defendant was distracted at the time of the accident, and whether the Defendant pled guilty to any criminal charges in connection with the accident.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of the Court’s Opinion granting summary judgment in favor of a Plaintiff who did not file any Response to the Motion may click this LINK.

Source of image:  www.urbandictionary.com.

Court Rules that Punitive Damages May Not Be Claimed for Post-Incident Conduct

In the case of Pavlik v. Smith, No. 2024-CV-09109 (C.P. Luz. Co. Aug. 1, 2025 Gelb, J.) the court denied a Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint in a dog bite case.

Of note, the court denied the Plaintiff’s efforts to file an Amended Complaint that would contain a claim for punitive damages for post-incident conduct by the Defendants relative to the dog bite incident.

The court noted that punitive damages are not available for post-incident conduct of a tortfeasor. In so ruling, the court cited, with “see” signals, the cases of Bert Co. v. Turk, 298 A.3d 44, 61 (Pa. 2023) (Explaining that the fact-finder may impose punitive damages for torts, as opposed to any post-incident conduct) and Feld v. Merriam, 485 A.2d 742, 748 (Pa. 1984) (Stating that “one must look to the act itself together with all circumstances when imposing punitive damages).

Anyone wishing to review this detailed Order without Opinion may click this LINK.