Various Pre-Trial Motions in Limine Decided in Federal Court Trucking Accident Case

In the case of Kozak v. Klikuszewski, No. 4:21-CV-01609 (M.D. Pa. Nov. 5, 2025 Schwab, J.), the court decided a variety of Motions In Limine prior to a motor vehicle accident trial.

This matter arose out of an accident between the Plaintiff's car and the Defendant's tractor trailer during a snow squall on Interstate 80.   

Of note, the court denied the Defendant’s Motion for Bifurcation after finding that the Defendant offered no reason in support of bifurcation other that the Plaintiffs were claiming a serious injury. The court found this to be an insufficient reason to support a request for bifurcation.

The court also found evidence to support the claim to allow the punitive damages claims to go forward.

The court noted that, when there is a punitive damages claim against a supervisor, negligent supervision, hiring, and entrustment claims may also proceed.

The court additionally ruled that evidence of a driver’s past traffic citations and accidents was relevant to the Plaintiff’s claims for negligent hiring, retention, and entrustment. As such, that evidence was ruled as admissible.

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


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

Superior Court Addresses Crashworthiness Doctrine

In its non-precedential decision in the case of Amagasu v. Fred Beans Family of Dealerships, No. 1594 EDA 2024 (Pa. Super. Dec. 22, 2025 Olson, J., Dubow, J., and Beck, J.) (Op. by Olson, J.), the Pennsylvania Superior Court vacated a one billion dollar jury verdict in favor of the Plaintiffs in a products liability case.

According to the Opinion, this case arose out of a motor vehicle accident. In this product liability case against Mitsubishi, the Plaintiffs allege, in part, that the seat belt system and the low roof configuration of the vehicle, and other related structures were defective.

In its Opinion, the Pennsylvania Superior Court held, in part, that the trial court had erroneously instructed the jurors to apply a wrong legal standard, resulting in a verdict that was reached by the jury under an improperly reduced burden of proof.

The Superior Court noted that the jurors at the trial should have been instructed to apply the “crashworthiness” doctrine. This standard holds a vehicle manufacturer liable for injuries caused by design defects in their vehicles during accidents.

In this matter, the jurors were instead instructed to apply a general strict liability standard which had a lower burden of proof.

Accordingly, the Superior Court agreed with the defense argument that the trial court abused its discretion in electing to given only a traditional Section 402A strict products liability instruction.

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

I send thanks to Attorney Kenneth T. Newman of the Pittsburgh office of the Thomas Thomas & & Hafer, LLP law firm for bringing this case to my attention.

Court Grants Summary Judgment and Rejects Plaintiff's Reliance Upon Local Ordinance Requiring Ice and Snow Removal

In the case of Foxx v. City of New Castle, No. 11038 of 2023, C.A. (C.P. Lawr. Co. Hodge, J.), the court granted summary judgment in a premises liability case.

According to the Opinion, this matter involved a Plaintiff who left her residence and proceeded two (2) blocks to a Rite Aid pharmacy in a motorized wheelchair. As the Plaintiff approached the corner of one intersection, she attempted to proceed through a crosswalk but noted that snow was not cleared from the sidewalk. As a result, the Plaintiff was forced to cross the street in a different area and enter the Rite Aid parking lot utilizing a vehicle ramp. The Plaintiff was able to safely traverse that area and enter the store.

After leaving the store, the Plaintiff went to the end of the parking lot and stopped on the sidewalk as she noticed that it was full of snow and ice. Accordingly, she went back over to the same vehicle ramp that she had previously used to enter the parking lot. 

As she proceeded down to the bottom of the ramp, her wheels got caught in a hole which resulted in her falling from the motorized wheelchair and onto the street. The Plaintiff stated that she could not see the hole as it was slushy, dark brown water was coming down the street. 

Plaintiff later filed suit for her personal injuries.

The Defendant making the motion for summary judgment in this matter was the out-of-possession owner of the Rite Aid premises. The Defendant landowner asserted that its tenant was in possession of the premises and had the responsibility to repair and maintain the premises. The Defendant owner asserted that the tenant’s responsibility extended to the exterior facility such as the sidewalks and parking areas.

The Defendant asserted in its Motion for Summary Judgment that the Plaintiff had not presented any evidence that the Defendant, as a landlord out-of-possession, had breached any duty of care owed to the Plaintiff. 

The Defendant also asserted that the condition that allegedly caused the Plaintiff’s injuries was an open and obvious condition.

After reviewing the record before it, the court provided a detailed recitation of the current status of the premises liability law in this regard relative to a landlord out of possession. The court ruled that the record before it confirmed that the landlord out-of-possession had leased the premises to a tenant who exercises exclusive possession of the premises at the time. The lease agreement also required that the tenant was responsible for maintaining and repairing the premises including the sidewalk areas and the place where the Plaintiff was injured.

The trial court rejected the Plaintiff’s reliance upon a local ordinance regarding ice and snow removal in an effort to attach liability to the out-of-possession landlord.  The court found that the local ordinance did not appear to be applicable as the Plaintiff’s injuries were not sustained as an accumulation of snow and ice but due to the motorized wheelchair encountering a hole near the end of the vehicle ramp. The ordinance at issue appeared to only apply to ice and snow that rendered sidewalks dangerous to pedestrian travel.

It appears that, given the court’s decision on the landlord out of possession issue, it did not reach the open and obvious argument presented by the defense.

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


I send thanks to Attorney Gerald Connor of the Scranton office of the Margolis Edelstein law firm for bringing this case to my attention.

Source of image:  Photo by Damian McCoig on www.unsplash.com.

CONTACT CUMMINS LAW TO BRING YOUR CASE TO A CLOSE VIA MEDIATION

 

LOOKING TO BRING YOUR CASE TO A CLOSE?

LIMITED SLOTS AVAILABLE

PLEASE CALL TODAY TO SCHEDULE YOUR APPOINTMENT

570-319-5899

dancummins@cumminslaw.net

Superior Court Rules That 3 Hour Delay Between End of Snowstorm and Beginning of Cleanup Was Not Unreasonable (Non-Precedential)

It appears that it is reasonable in Pennsylvania to have a cup of coffee or tea and enjoy the sight of a freshly fallen snow before having to go out and shovel.

In its non-precedential decision in the case of Melvin v. Sellani, No. 1234 MDA 2024 (Pa. Super. Dec. 31, 2025 Bowes, J., Stabile, J., and Stevens, P.J.E.) (Mem. Op. by Stabile, J.), the court affirmed the entry of summary judgment in favor of the Defendant landowners and property manager in a slip and fall matter involving ice and/or snow.

The trial court decision entering summary judgment in favor of the Defendants had been entered by Judge Richard M. Hughes, III of the Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas.

Relative to the hills and ridges argument, the court noted that the Plaintiff failed to present evidence to establish when photographs of the scene of the incident were taken. There were conflicting statements as to whether the photos were taken the day of the incident or shortly thereafter. As such, the court noted that the photographs relied upon by the Plaintiff were not sufficient to create any material issues of fact as to whether the Defendants were under a duty to remedy any alleged hills and/or ridges of snow at the time of the incident.

The Superior Court otherwise observed that the Plaintiff failed to establish that an unreasonable of time had passed between the snowstorm and the alleged dangerous accumulation of snow or ice.

By the Plaintiff’s own testimony, it was snowing when she arrived at work at 6:30 in the morning on the day of the fall. The Plaintiff also confirmed that the snow had stopped by 3:00 p.m. when she left work. Three (3) to five (5) inches of snow had accumulated.

It was additionally indicated that the Defendant property manager indicated that he had begun to remove snow at 9:30 a.m. at the Plaintiff’s residence. The Plaintiff confirmed that the property manager was still working at snow removal when the Plaintiff arrived at home.

The court noted that, even if the snow had stopped immediately when the Plaintiff arrived at work earlier that morning, the Plaintiff provided no case law to support an argument “that a 3-hour delay between the cessation of the snow and the beginning of the clean up effort constitute[d] an unreasonable delay.” See Op. at 7.

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

Source of image:  Photo by Jill Wellington on www.pexels.com.

Civil Trial Stayed Pending Resolution of Companion Criminal Case

In the case of Estate of Dugan v. Hotton, No. 2023-CV-4957 (C.P. Lacka. Co. Jan. 6, 2026 Nealon, J.), the court granted a Defendant’s Motion to Stay a civil jury trial in a wrongful death action arising out of a motor vehicle accident pending the resolution of the Defendant’s companion criminal court proceedings under charges of driving under the influence.

In so ruling, the court reviewed the applicable six-factor balancing test adopted by the Pennsylvania Superior Court in the case of Kessee v. Dougherty, 230 A.3d 1128 (Pa. Super. 2020). After reviewing those 6-factors, the court deemed it appropriate to enter the stay.

Judge Terrence R. Nealon of the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas, who decided this issue, handed down a very detailed Opinion outlining the current status of the law in this regard.

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

Defense counsel in this case is Daniel E. Cummins, Esq.

Source of image: Photo by Cottonbro Studios on www.pexels.com.

Court Allows Claim To Proceed Against UIM Carrier Where UIM Claims Rep Allegedly Interfered With Settlement Negotiations In Third Party Case

In the case of Winner v. Progressive Advanced Ins., No. 2230 EDA 2024 (Pa. Super. Sept. 24, 2025 Panella, P.J.E., Nichols, J., and Ford Elliott, P.J.E.) (Op. by Panella, P.J.E.), the Pennsylvania Superior Court overruled the dismissal of an Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (UTPCPL) claims that was based on alleged actions of an insurance adjuster who allegedly intentionally interfered with the policyholder’s settlement negotiations in a lawsuit with a third party Defendant.

According to the Opinion, this matter arose out of a car accident.  During the course of the matter, after completing productive settlement negotiations in the third party matter, Plaintiff's counsel contacted the UIM carrier to request that a UIM claim be opened.

Thereafter, the UIM claims representative, without the consent of the carrier's insured or the insured's attorney, contacted the third party defense attorney and informed that defense attorney of a subsequent accident that the Plaintiff had been involved in.  As is turned out, the subsequent accident only involved property damages and no injuries to the insured.

Plaintiff's counsel in this matter alleged that the UIM carrier had allegedly contacted the third party defense attorney in order to persuade that attorney to reduce his settlement offer in the third party case in an attempt to shield the UIM carrier from the UIM claim.  In other words, the Plaintiff asserted that the UIM carrier purposely interfered in the third party matter in an effort to prevent the Plaintiff from recieving UIM benefits.

Based on these facts, the Superior Court overruled the trial court's dismissal of the Plaintiff's UTPCPL claims.

The Superior Court additionally held that the forum selection clause in the policy that applies to any action brought against the insurance company requiring that such action must be brought in a county in which a person seeking benefits resides also applies to bad faith and unfair trade practices claims based on the conduct alleged in this matter.

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


Source: “Court Summaries” By Timothy L. Clawges, Pennsylvania Bar News (Oct. 20, 2025).

Source of image:  Photo by Sean Musil on www.unsplash.com.