Motion For Summary Judgment Denied in Zipline Accident Case

In the case of Witkowski v. Hellerick’s Family Farm, Inc., No. 230900999 (C.P. Phila. Co. Sept. 18, 2025), the trial court issued a Rule 1925 Opinion requesting the Superior Court to affirm its decision denying a Motion for Summary Judgment in a premises liability case.

According to the Opinion, this matter arises out of a fatal accident that occurred when the Plaintiff died after experiencing difficulties on a zipline course at the Defendant’s farm.

Prior to the incident, the Plaintiff has signed liability waivers acknowledging the risks involved in the activity.

After the accident, the Plaintiff filed a negligence suit in which recklessness was alleged as well.

The Defendant farm moved for summary judgment arguing that the signed waivers and the Agritourism Activity Protection Act shielded the Defendants from liability.

According to the Opinion, the Agritourism Activity Protection Act limits liability for agritourism providers unless gross negligence or recklessness is proven.

The court found that issues of fact with regards to whether the Defendant’s conduct constituted gross negligence or recklessness, which would negate the protections of the waivers and the act existed in the case presented. As such, the court noted that the issues should be permitted to proceed to a jury.

The trial court otherwise noted that the appeal should be dismissed on procedural grounds as its order did not meet the criteria for an appealable Order under Pennsylvania law given that the Order at issue was not a final Order.

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


Source: The Legal Intelligencer Common Pleas Case Alert, www.Law.com (Jan. 8, 2026).

Trial Court Addresses Whether a Certificate of Merit is Required

In the case of Muniz-Colon v. Friends Hospital, Sept. Term, 2025, No. 0068500065 (C.P. Phila. Co. Jan. 12, 2026 Hill, J.), the court addressed the issue of when a Certificate of Merit may be required for a professional negligence case.

According to information gathered on this case, the Plaintiff in this matter was allegedly brought to the hospital where he was allegedly assaulted and apparently knocked unconscious by the staff as he was allegedly being admitted to the facility on a 302 admission.

In response to the lawsuit filed, the Defendants all filed Motions for Non Pros due to the failure of the Plaintiff to present a Certificate of Merit under the MCARE statute.

Plaintiff’s counsel filed a Motion under Pa. R.C.P. 1042.6(c) for a determination as to whether a Certificate of Merit was required or not.

In its decision, the court ruled that the alleged assault may have indeed occurred in the course of a professional relationship given that it occurred during the admissions process. However, the court ruled the allegations in the Complaint as involving alleged negligence that did not involve medical judgment. 

Accordingly, the court ruled that no Certificate of Merit was required for the case presented.

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


I send thanks to Attorney Robin Feeney of the Philadelphia law firm of Matkoff, Shengold, Berman, Goodnow & Associates, P.C. for bringing this case to my attention.

Mock Trial Jurors Still Needed For Tomorrow's Lackawanna County Mock Trials -- Please Consider Volunteering

 

Link to Copy of Hagedorn Decision Reviewed in Yesterday's Tort Talk Post.

Yesterday's Tort Talk blog post reviewed the case of Hagedorn v. Rick’s Backhoe Service, Inc., No. 2018-CV-3723 (C.P. Lacka. Co. Jan. 9, 2026 Nealon, J.), which involved a decision on a Motion for Bifurcation.  The Link to the post was not complete.

Here is the LINK to the above decision.  Sorry for any inconvenience.

Thank you for reading Tort Talk.

Motion To Bifurcate Motor Vehicle Accident Lawsuit Involving Bad Injuries Denied

In the case of Hagedorn v. Rick’s Backhoe Service, Inc., No. 2018-CV-3723 (C.P. Lacka. Co. Jan. 9, 2026 Nealon, J.), the court denied a Defendant’s Motion to Bifurcate the liability and damages issues presented in a motor vehicle accident case.

According to the Opinion, this matter arose out of a motor vehicle accident during which the Plaintiff was operating a motorcycle.  The Plaintiff and the Defendant driver allegedly engaged in road rage in a construction zone and that, during the interaction, the Defendant driver negligently and recklessly struck the Plaintiff’s motorcycle, resulting in the accident.

In seeking to bifurcate the liability and damages issues presented, the Defendants asserted that they were proceeding on a strong liability defense. 

The Defendants also asserted that, given the severity of the injuries sustained by the Plaintiff, there was a strong likelihood that the jury’s decision on liability would be tainted by sympathy for the Plaintiff if the jury was to hear the damages evidence and the severity of the damages alleged. 

The defense further argued that the bifurcation would expedite the action by allowing for a clear presentation of the negligence issues to the jury without confusing the issues relative to the injuries and damages claims presented.

In opposition, the Plaintiff asserted, in part, that the testimony of the treating physicians would explain, in part, the mechanics of the Plaintiff’s injuries which could also provide relevant context on how the collision actually occurred and what the forces involved were. The Plaintiff additionally asserted that a bifurcation of the trial would not serve the interests of judicial economy as it would cause a lengthier trial and additional expenses.

Judge Terrence R. Nealon of the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas reviewed the Motion to Bifurcate under the standard of review set forth in Pa. R.C.P. 213(b). 

In reviewing the law, Judge Nealon noted that appellate decisions indicated that cases should only be bifurcated where the separation of the issues would facilitate the orderly presentation of evidence and would support judicial economy. Bifurcation is typically only granted where the issues of liability and damages are “totally independent.” See Op. at 4 [citation omitted].

Here, the court found that bifurcation of the trial would not promote convenience or judicial economy. The court additionally found that the issues of liability and damages were not totally independent from one another based upon the information in the record before the court.

Judge Terrence R. Nealon
Lackawanna Co.

In this regard, Judge Nealon noted that the Plaintiff indicated that his treating physicians would testify regarding the mechanics of his injuries, which could provide context regarding the dynamics of the impact, which could bear on the issue of how the accident occurred. Judge Nealon also noted that proof of that nature indicates that certain evidence on liability and damages is intermingled. 

The court also noted that the defense had not established that bifurcation was necessary to actually avoid prejudice. In terms of any concern that the jury might be sympathetic towards the Plaintiff due to the nature of the Plaintiff’s injuries, the court noted that the jury would be furnished with instructions from the court admonishing the jury that they should not allow sympathy or emotion to influence their deliberations or verdict.

Judge Nealon additionally cited to Pennsylvania Supreme Court precedent confirming that the courts may assume that juries will follow judicial instructions faithfully.

Based upon its review of the matter, the court found that bifurcation of the liability and damages issues into separate trials pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 213(b) was not proper in this matter. Accordingly, the Motion was denied.

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

Mock Trial Jurors Needed For First Round of Lackawanna County Competition Set for Next Wednesday - Please Consider Volunteering

 

Third Circuit Addresses Strict Liability Claims in Alleged Food Poisoning Case

In its unpublished decision in the case of Kovalev v. Lidl US, LLC, No. 24-3224 (3rd Cir. Nov. 12, 2025 Hardiman, J., Matey, J., Chung, J.) (per curiam) (unpublished), the appellate court affirmed the entry of summary judgment and other motions after finding that the thirty (30) day removal to federal court deadline begins when the Defendant learns that the case is indeed removable.

According to the record before this court, the Plaintiff had made a demand in excess of the diversity jurisdictional amount.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff claimed food poisoning from eating bread from a loaf of bread he had purchased.   

The court otherwise noted that the Plaintiff failed to establish that the alleged defective condition existed at the time of the sale, thereby precluding any strict liability claims. The court also found that the Plaintiff did not have any evidence to support the allegation that the alleged defect caused his claimed injuries.

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


I send thanks to Attorney James Beck of the Philadelphia office of the Reed Smith law firm for bringing this case to my attention.