Pennsylvania Supreme Court Addresses the Applicability of the Increased Risk of Harm Jury Instruction

In the case of Estate of Smith v. Kannarkatt, No. 17 MAP 2025 (Pa. Oct. 29, 2026) (Brobson, J.), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court addressed the applicability of the “increased risk of harm” jury instruction in medical malpractice cases.

According to the Opinion, this case arose out of a medical malpractice case involving a Plaintiff with cancer issues and an allegedly incorrect diagnosis regarding the same.

The Plaintiff’s estate sued the oncologist and other Defendants asserting a breach of the standard of care by the failure of the medical providers to properly diagnosis and consult, which allegedly resulted in a delayed proper treatment and increased harm to the Plaintiff’s decedent.

The essential issue in this case was whether there was sufficient expert evidence under Pennsylvania’s “increased risk of harm” standard to permit the case to go to the jury.

The case went up the appellate ladder and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court reviewed whether the Superior Court correctly applied the “increased risk of harm” standard under the case of Hamil v. Bashline.

Justice Brobson opened his Opinion with a succinct description of the question of law presented, as follows:

Oftentimes, as a part of establishing liability in a medical malpractice action, a plaintiff must present expert medical testimony that a defendant’s conduct fell below acceptable medical standards and that the conduct was the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s harm. There are instances, however, when a plaintiff cannot meet this standard because there exists a possibility that the plaintiff’s harm would have resulted irrespective of the quality of the medical treatment provided. Concluding that a defendant cannot escape liability simply based upon that statistical possibility, this Court, in Hamil v. Bashline, 392 A.2d 1280 (Pa. 1978), adopted a standard that relaxed a plaintiff’s burden of proving causation in those circumstances.

Specifically, the Hamil Court held that “causation may be founded upon expert opinion testimony to the effect that [the] defendant failed to exercise reasonable care in performing an undertaking to render services to a patient which the defendant should recognize as necessary for the other’s protection, that this failure increased the risk of physical harm to the patient, and that such harm did in fact result.” Hamil, 392 A.2d at 1283. In this discretionary appeal, we must determine whether the Superior Court

correctly applied this so-called “increased risk of harm” standard of causation in this case. For the reasons that follow, we hold that the Superior Court applied the standard correctly.  Accordingly, we affirm.

As noted, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that the Superior Court had indeed properly applied this relaxed causation standard after finding that the Plaintiffs’ expert testimony was sufficient to establish a prima facie case that the oncologist’s conduct allegedly increased the Plaintiff’s risk of harm.

As such, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court’s decision, which required the case to be submitted to the jury.

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


Source: Justia Daily Opinion Summaries: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania (Oct. 30, 2026).

Federal Court Addresses Viability of Punitive Damages Claims in a Trucking Accident Case

In the case of Shubitidze v. Shelton, No. 2:26-CV-05259-PD (E.D. Pa. Oct. 16, 2026 Diamond, J.), the court granted a Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss claims of punitive damages and vicarious liability claims against a truck owner and the driver’s employer in a trucking accident case.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff was injured in a motor vehicle accident involving a commercial vehicle. The Plaintiff sued the Defendant truck driver and the truck driver’s employer. The Plaintiff asserted that the trucking company was vicariously liable for its driver’s actions.

Relative to the punitive damages claims, the court found that the Plaintiff failed to plead facts sufficient to make out a plausible claim for punitive damages against either the driver or his employer. The court noted that many of the Plaintiff’s allegations amounted to mere conclusory statements without supporting facts. 

The court additionally noted that allegations that a Defendant did not comply with the law, in and of themselves, are insufficient to satisfy the requirements of Pennsylvania law for awarding punitive damages.

The court also found that the claims by the Plaintiff against the Plaintiff’s employer were also conclusory in nature.

As such, the punitive damages claims asserted in the case against both Defendants were dismissed.

The court otherwise noted that, under Pennsylvania law, a Plaintiff cannot assert claims for negligent hiring, retention, or entrustment against a Defendant company if the Plaintiff has also asserted a claim against the same Defendant on a theory of vicarious liability.

The court noted that evidence of direct liability claims in this regard become unnecessary, irrelevant, and prejudicial if the employer has already admitted vicarious liability under a respondeat superior status. The court noted that the lone exception to this general rule occurs when a Plaintiff otherwise has a valid claim for punitive damages.  As noted, the court had dismissed the punitive damages claims in this case after finding no basis for the same.

As such, the court found that, where the trucking company in this matter admitted that the truck driver was its employee and was acting with the course and scope of his employment, the Plaintiff’s direct claims for negligent hiring, entrustment, or supervision were dismissed as improper.

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

I send thanks to Attorney John G. Devlin of the Philadelphia law firm of Devlin Associates, P.C. for bringing this case to my attention.

Superior Court Upholds Trial Court's Allowance of an Amendment to a Complaint During Course of a Trial To Add Claims for Punitive Damages

In the case of Bernavage v. Greenridge Healthcare Group, LLC, No. 1576 MDA 2023 (Pa. Super. Oct. 22, 2026) (en banc) (Op. by Lazarus, J.) (Stabile, J., dissenting), the Pennsylvania Superior Court upheld a trial court’s allowance of an amendment of a Complaint by a Plaintiff during the course of a trial to add claims for punitive damages.

According to the Opinion, this lawsuit involved allegations of negligence against a nursing home where the then elderly Plaintiff had fractured her hip after the staff had allegedly improperly transferred her without the necessary precautions.

The case was bifurcated into a case on liability and compensatory damages, and was followed with a separate trial on the punitive damages claims.

During the course of the first trial, after the Plaintiff had presented evidence in support of claims of recklessness, including expert witness testimony, the Plaintiff sought to amend the original Complaint to include claims of recklessness and to request punitive damages. This request was granted by the trial court.

As noted, on appeal and under this en banc decision, the Superior Court found no error by the trial court in this regard.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of the Majority Opinion of this decision may click this LINK.  Judge Stabile's Dissenting Opinion can be viewed HERE.

Congratulations to the Honorable Thomas I. Vanaskie (Ret.) on Being Honored Later This Week

 

Filing of Complaint in District Magistrate Satisfies Statute of Limitations

In the case of Whittington v. Daniels, No. 47 MAP 2025 (Pa. 2026) (Op. by Mundy, J.), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court addressed the issue of whether the filing of a Complaint in a magisterial district court serves to toll the statute of limitations for all time.

This matter arose out of a contractual dispute.

There was a district magistrate hearing and the case was appealed to the Court of Common Pleas where the Plaintiff was required to file a new Complaint under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure within twenty (20) days.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiffs failed to file their Complaint and the case became dormant until a later Notice of Intent to Terminate was issued by the trial court. The Plaintiffs then filed a Complaint at that point.

The Defendant responded by indicating that the claim was barred by the applicable statute of limitations.

After the matter later went up to the Pennsylvania Superior Court, that court found that the filing of a magisterial district justice Complaint tolls the statue of limitations only during the pendency of the magisterial district court case and that the statute again begins to run after the expiration of the twenty (20) day period to file a Complaint when the district magistrate case is appealed to the Court of Common Pleas.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed the Superior Court’s decision as erroneous.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that the filing of a magisterial district justice Complaint tolls the statute of limitations for any cause of action based upon the factual allegations in that district magistrate Complaint, including during any appeal.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court additionally held that the subsequent filing of a Common Pleas Court Complaint is simply a continuation of the original action, not the commencement of a new action.

As such, the Supreme Court ruled that the Plaintiff’s cause of action was not barred by the statute of limitations.

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


Source: Justia Daily Opinion Summaries: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania (Oct. 30, 2026).

Trial Court Grants Summary Judgment Based on Borrowed Servant Doctrine

In the case of Almonte v. Roaring Creek Egg Farm, No. 2019-CV-03731 (C.P. Luz. Co. Oct. 7, 2026 Pierantoni, J.), the court granted various Motions for Summary Judgment filed by various Defendants in a construction accident case.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff, while working as a temporary construction laborer, allegedly fell approximately three (3) stories through an opening of a building that was being constructed and sustained injuries as a result.

One of the Defendants, Hershey Equipment Company, was granted summary judgment under the borrowed servant doctrine.

The Hershey Equipment Company asserted that, based upon the record before the court, the Plaintiff was its borrowed servant and, therefore, Hershey Equipment Company, was immune from the tort lawsuit under the Worker’s Compensation Act.

The court agreed and granted this Defendant summary judgment on this basis.

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


I sending thanks to Attorney Ryan McBride of the Scranton office of the Weber Gallagher law firm for bringing this case to my attention.

Source of image:  Photo by Josh Olalde on www.unsplash.com.

Still Time to Register or Sponsor