Trial Court Reaffirms that Plaintiffs May Plead Recklessness With Reckless Abandon

In the case of Kafley v. Breneiser, No. 24-CV-3508 (C.P. Lacka. Co. April 24, 2025 Gibbons, J.), the court overruled Preliminary Objections filed by the Defendant to claims of recklessness asserted in a rear-end motor vehicle accident case. 

President Judge James A. Gibbons
Lackawanna County

In this decision, President Judge James A. Gibbons of the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas confirmed the current status of the law that allows Plaintiffs to plead recklessness in any given case so long as allegations of negligence are likewise asserted. 

In this regard, the court relied upon the Pennsylvania Superior Court decision of Monroe v. CBH2O, LP, 286 A.3d 785, 799 (Pa. Super. 2022).

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

Discovery Sanctions Entered Against Defendant Who Was Not Cooperating With Discovery Requirements

In the case of Jones v. STR8 FROM US, LLC, No. 2:24-CV-05370-GJP (E.D. Pa. April 23, 2025 Pappert, J.), the court entered a sanctions Order against the defense in a motor vehicle accident matter where the Defendant driver refused to speak with his defense counsel that were hired by the Defendant’s insurance carrier, refused to respond to the discovery requests and deadlines, and refused the efforts to complete his deposition.

After discovery Orders were entered, the Plaintiffs moved for sanctions pursuant to F.R.C. 37(b) related to the Defendant’s continued failure to obey the court’s discovery Orders.

In assessing the justification of any discovery sanctions, the court applied what is known as the Poulis factors, which are a series of six (6) separate factors that a trial court should review and apply before granting an award for sanctions. In this regard, the court cited the case of Poulis v. State Farm, 647 F.2d 863, 868 (3d Cir. 1984).

Judge Pappert noted that Rule 37 authorizes courts to sanction conduct that obstructs the completion of discovery. After reviewing the matter before him, Judge Pappert granted sanctions and precluded the Defendant from testifying at trial or offering evidence concerning how the car accident involving the Plaintiff occurred and/or who was at fault. 

The court also noted that, after reviewing the Poulis factors, it was also appropriate to strike all of the Defendant’s affirmative defenses that did not pertain to the issues of causation or damages.

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


Source: Article – “Judge Hobbles Trial Defense After Client Refuses To Cooperate With His Lawyers” By Riley Brennan of The Legal Intelligencer (April 24, 2025).

Quoted in National Article Analyzing Recent Pennsylvania Supreme Court Decision on a Medical Malpractice Decision of Note

Was recently quoted in an nationally circulated article entitled "Pa. Mental Health Rejection Suits Could Rise, Atty Says" by Y. Peter Kang that appeared in the national online publication of Law360.

The article reviewed a recent Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision in the case of Matos v. Geisinger Medical Center in which that Court addressed the extent to which an injured party may pursue a medical malpractice claim against medical providers who rebuffed an individual who wished to voluntarily submit themselves for mental health treatment who then thereafter end up injuring another person or themselves.

The article is not freely accessible online. To the extent you may wish to read a portion of the article please do not hesitate to contact me at dancummins@cumminslaw.net.

The Tort Talk write up of this decision is forthcoming.

Eastern District Federal Court Transfers Personal Injury Case to Western District Federal Court

In the case of Seidman v. Hamilton Beach Brands, Inc., No. 2:24-CV-06033 (E.D. Pa. March 21, 2025 Weilheimer, J.), the Eastern District Federal Court granted a Defendant’s Motion to Transfer a products liability case filed by a Pittsburgh Plaintiff who treated for his injuries in Pittsburgh to the Western District Federal Court.

In this case, the Plaintiffs initially filed the lawsuit in state court venue that was within the Eastern District Federal Court venue. The Defendants removed the case to federal court. The court initially noted that the Eastern District Federal Court had venue and jurisdiction to review the Motion to Transfer given that the case had been properly removed to its attention.

Moving on to the merits of the Motion to Transfer, the court noted that, when a Plaintiff chooses to file a lawsuit outside of their home forum, the Plaintiff’s choice will receive less difference. The court noted that the facts of the matter had nothing to do with the Eastern District Federal Court. The court also noted that the convenience of counsel is not irrelevant factor in addressing whether or not to grant a Motion to Transfer.

The court also noted that jury duty should not be imposed upon the people of a community who have no relationship to the litigation.

For all of these reasons, the Eastern District Court granted the Motion to Transfer this matter to the Western District Court.

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

PLEASE SPONSOR OR REGISTER FOR LACKAWANNA PRO BONO'S GOLF TOURNAMENT

 

ARTICLE: Use of Exhibits in Opening Statements: Win Your Case Before Any Witness Even Takes the Stand

 

Here is a LINK to an article of mine that appeared in the May/June 2025 edition of The Pennsylvania Lawyer Magazine published by the Pennsylvania Bar Association.  

The article is entitled "Use of Exhibits in Opening Statements is Allowed" and analzyes the recent decision by Judge Terrence R. Nealon of the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas in the case of Webb v. Scranton Quincy Hosp. Co., LLC.  

In his Opinion in the Webb case, Judge Nealon laid out, for the first time, the law that supports the use of exhibits during Opening Statements in personal injury matters.  

Gone are now the days where lawyers could only utilize exhibits during Opening Statements if the opposing counsel has no objection to the same.  Now there is law that can support a desire to utilize exhibits during an Opening even if the opposing counsel objects.

I send thanks to Patricia Graybill, editor of The Pennsylvania Lawyer Magazine for agreeing to publish this article.

PLEASE SUPPORT LACKAWANNA PRO BONO