Friday, July 18, 2025
Court Allows Allegation that Plaintiff Suffered "Other Injuries, The Extent of Which is Not Yet Known" To Stand
In the case of Brooks v. Shandor, No. 2024-CV-5771 (C.P. Wash. Co. July 2, 2025 Lucas, J.), the court addressed Preliminary Objections in a motor vehicle accident case in which the Defendant objected to a paragraph in the Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint in which the Plaintiff claimed to have suffered “other injuries, the extent of which is not yet known.”
The Defendant filed Preliminary Objections to that allegation under Pa. R.C.P. 1028(a)(3), asserting that the allegation lacked the requisite specificity required by the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure.
The court noted that, to determine if an allegation in a pleading contains the appropriate specificity, the court is required to look not only at the particular allegation at issue, but also that allegation in the context of the other allegations of the Complaint.
Here, the court ruled that, considering the Amended Complaint in its entirety, the Plaintiff was found to have adequately complied with the pleading rules.
More specifically, the court noted that the Plaintiff had detailed specific allegations of negligence and also alleged that the Defendant’s negligence caused multiple physical injuries to several identified body parts. The Plaintiff additionally detailed subjective symptoms of those injuries along with objective signs of those injuries.
The court otherwise noted that, under Pa. R.C.P. 1019(a), a Plaintiff need not plead evidentiary facts. The court also noted that Pa. R.C.P. 1019 does not require that injuries be pled specifically. Rather, claims for physical injuries, medical expenses, and lost wages are permitted to be pled generally.
The trial court otherwise noted that discovery and pre-trial statement requirements will protect the Defendant from being ambushed by any claims of a new injury at the time of trial. The Defendant was noted to have the right to inquire as to the specific nature and extent of the Plaintiff’s alleged injuries during the course of the discovery in the case. The court also noted that, in her eventual pre-trial statement, the Plaintiff will be required, under the local rules of court, to provide a “specific description of her damages” along with a copy of all medical expert reports.
The court otherwise noted that, to the extent the Plaintiff fails to comply with these requirements, the Defendant may, at that point, seek to preclude the presentation of any non-disclosed evidence of an injury at trial.
For these reasons, the trial court overruled the Defendant’s Preliminary Objections.
Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.
I send thanks to Attorney Danielle M. Deklewa of the Pittsburgh, PA law firm of Ainsman Levine, LLC, for bringing this case to my attention.
Thursday, July 17, 2025
Court Rules That Expert Testimony Not Required To Establish Defendant's Duty to Provide a Safe Workplace
In the case of Chirdon v. 3M Company, Inc., No. G.D. 22-16244 (C.P. Allegh. Co. March 24, 2025 Kline, J.), the trial court denied the Defendant’s post-trial motions in an alleged unsafe workplace trial involving allegations of asbestos exposure to a boilermaker.
According to the Opinion, the jury awarded $2.3 million dollars in compensatory damages and $1.5 million dollars in punitive damages against the Defendant employer.
In this Rule 1925 Opinion, by the trial court, the court addressed defenses raised with regard to statute of repose, the method in which the concept of outrageous conduct may be admitted into evidence at trial, issues regarding the bifurcation of the liability and punitive damages phases of the trial and challenges by the defense to the Plaintiff’s failure to utilize an expert to explain OSHA violations.
Notably the trial court rule that expert testimony was not required to establish the Defendant's duty to provide a safe workplace. Rather, the court ruled that the duty to provide a safe workplace, as well as the applicable OSHA regulations were within the understanding of ordinary jurors.
Overall, the trial court ruled that the Defendant failed to meet the standard of review for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial. As such, the Defendant's post-trial motions were denied.
Anyone wishing to review this decision may click this LINK.
I send thanks to Attorney Ken Behrend of the Behrend Law Group, LLC located in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania for bringing this case to my attention.
I send thanks to Attorney Ken Behrend of the Behrend Law Group, LLC located in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania for bringing this case to my attention.
Source of image: Photo by Sylvia Brazzoduro from www.unsplash.com.
Tuesday, July 15, 2025
ARTICLE: TAKE ME OUT TO THE BALLGAME: Little League Tips for Big League Lawyers
As we get ready for baseball's All-Star game tonight, here's an article of mine that appeared in the May 25, 2010 edition of the Pennsylvania Law Weekly.
Little League tips for big league lawyers
By
Daniel E. Cummins
Pennsylvania Law Weekly/The Legal Intelligencer
May 25, 2010
It's that time of year again — Little League baseball is starting up for boys and girls.
The smell of hotdogs and Cracker Jacks permeates the air, while spent sunflower seed shells crunch underfoot on the dusty floor of the dugout.
For kids, it's a time for new uniforms, cleats and friends. For parents, on the other hand, it can be a time for more laundry, over-the-top coaches hellbent on winning and some equally overbearing fellow parents. As Yogi Berra said, "Little League baseball is a very good thing because it keeps the parents off the streets."
In any event, it's a time for great memories.
During one "quick" two-and-a-half hour long Little League baseball game, it became clear that a lot of the coaching shouted by the managers and others could also be applied to improve one's game in the practice of law.
'Let's Warm Up and Stretch'
Warming up and stretching in baseball prevents injuries. Doing the same before any court appearances may prevent damage to the client's case.
Whether it be the simplest of oral arguments on a slam dunk motion to compel, a direct examination, a cross-examination or an opening statement or a closing argument, all can benefit from a warm up by, at the very least, outlining the presentation on paper.
The more involved court presentations can be improved by a practice run-through in front of another person.
Like pre-game calisthenics or drills, going over such important presentations out loud, in a repetitive fashion, can assist one in committing the same to memory and tweaking it where necessary.
Even better, taking a lap with the presentation in front of another attorney or a lay person can result in tips on ways to improve upon the questioning of a witness or an address to the jury.
'Keep Your Eye on the Ball'
It is said that one of the hardest things to do in all of sports is to hit a pitched baseball. In fact, the "Splendid Splinter," Ted Williams, one of baseball's greatest hitters, said, "The hardest thing to do in baseball is to hit a round baseball with a round bat, squarely."
Analogously, one of the hardest things to do in the practice of law is to keep your eye on the ball when an opposing counsel is throwing all kinds of purposefully distracting maneuvers your way.
The best way to stay focused in this regard is to not take matters personally and to not stoop to the opponent's level in angry retaliation.
Wherever possible, ignore the shenanigans being put forth by opposing counsel and stay the course on your theory of the case. Keep your eye on the ball. Your client will be better off for it.
'Hustle!'
Everyone's always required to run in baseball. The coaches are always shouting, "Hustle," "Move," "Chase it down," "Run it out," "Run it in!"
Hustling in the practice of law includes quickly answering correspondence, promptly responding to discovery and motions, and staying ahead of opposing counsel's tactics. This will allow one's case to move in a quicker and smoother fashion, hopefully toward the desired result.
The key is to honor your client's case by continually hustling and not loafing, all the way to the conclusion of the matter. As Yogi Berra said, "The game isn't over until it's over."
'Eddie! Run to First Base ... Not Third!'
Learning the fundamentals and the rules of the game in T-ball lays the foundation for a good ballplayer later.
Former St. Louis Cardinals manager Whitey Herzog advised: "Fundamentals are the most valuable tools a player can possess. Bunt the ball into the ground. Hit the cutoff man. Take the extra base. Learn the fundamentals."
The same applies in the practice of law, which is founded on rules and fundamental concepts.
As such, in addition to staying on top of new caselaw, a quick read-through of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure on a periodic basis, even once a year, is recommended. This will not only refresh your memory of certain rules, and loopholes, but you may also surprise yourself by learning something new.
'Keep Your Butt Down!'
Perhaps nothing irks a coach more than seeing a ground ball go through the legs of an infielder who failed to get his butt down and his glove in the grass.
Something that falls through the cracks in the practice of law may unfortunately bring you much more trouble than an exasperated sigh and a big roll of the eyes from a coach.
To prevent such problems, it helps to regularly look ahead on the calendar, not only to the next week, but over the next 30 days to be reminded as to what's coming up. If the time permits, start a draft of that brief now that's due 30 days out.
It would also be beneficial to stay on top of the mail and phone calls by attempting, whenever possible, to return such communications on the spot and certainly no later than 24 hours after receipt. Once incoming letters and phone calls get older than 24 hours they are more likely to be forgotten, especially with the onslaught of more letters and phone calls received by a fortunately busy attorney.
Staying on top of the calendar and these communications will prevent things from going through the wickets and will make it less likely that you will be charged with an error.
'Cover All the Bases!'
A good baseball coach teaches his players to cover all of the bases on any hit ball.
If the coaching is good, the players are trained so that the first baseman covers first, the second baseman or shortstop go to the bag at second and the third baseman covers third at the crack of the bat. Although such coverage of the bases is usually wasted energy, there is always the potential that this maneuver will come in handy and may even secure an out or save a victory for the team.
Therein lies the pressure of the practice of law — the need to cover all of the bases all of the time. In addition to staying on top of incoming communications as noted above, another way to cover all the bases is to stay on top of the law.
New developments in the law can be committed to memory not only by reading updates but by actively typing case summaries and citations to a running list on a file on your computer.
Whether it be by reading the case digest section of the Pennsylvania Law Weekly, the blue advance sheets of the Atlantic Second Report, or other sources of updates, knowing the latest cases in your field of practice will always keep you ahead of the competition.
'You Never Argue With the Umpire!'
While it may have been socially acceptable in 1977 for Billy Martin to kick dirt all over an umpire's shoes and for Tommy Lasorda to get in an ump's face and say things like "%#@&*!%#@&*%," such is not the norm any more in baseball.
Nor is it in the practice of law, although the legal drama shows on TV these days may continually tempt young lawyers into believing it is acceptable to be flippant and disrespectful toward judges.
Candor, respect, and deference remain the rule in the courtroom and should be honored at all times.
So as much as you may want to go all Earl Weaver on a judge and his or her decision (which is probably the correct decision anyway), it's probably best to leave things unsaid or take it up on appeal.
'You'll Get 'Em Next Time.'
In baseball, failure is not the end of the world — it's expected. Strikeouts and errors happen all the time. Mediocre catcher and great baseball announcer, Bob Uecker, once proudly stated, "I led the league in 'Go get 'em next time.'"
The key in Little League to keeping young ballplayers coming back for more, despite errors or strikeouts, is repeated encouragement.
Noting that perfection is not the goal in baseball, Ted Williams stated, "Baseball is the only field of endeavor where a man can succeed three times out of 10 and be considered a good performer."
While attorneys should strive for better than a .300 average in terms of successes, a lawyer obviously can't win every motion or every case. But what counsel can do is keep their head up, learn from the losses, and move forward in search for a better result the next time around. To quote Babe Ruth, one of baseball's all-time greatest homerun hitters, "Don't let the fear of striking out hold you back."
'Line Up to Shake Hands!'
Last but not least, don't forget to line up at the end of every "game," whether you win or lose, to shake hands with your opponent and say, 'Good game.'
And so while you're out there in the game of law, enjoy it while you're in it, for as the great baseball announcer Vin Scully once said, "It's a mere moment in a man's life between the All-Star game and the Old-Timer's game."
Daniel E. Cummins is the managing attorney at Cummins Law where he focuses his practice on motor vehicle and trucking liability cases, products liability matters, and premises liability cases. He also serves as a mediator for the Federal Middle District Court and for Cummins Mediation in these types of cases. He is additionally the sole creator and writer of the Tort Talk Blog at www.TortTalkcom.
Reprinted with permission from the June 4, 2025 edition of the "The Pennsylvania Law Weekly © 2024 ALM Global Properties, LLC. All rights reserved. Further duplication without permission is prohibited, contact 877-256-2472 or asset-and-logo-licensing@alm.com.
Reprinted with permission from the June 4, 2025 edition of the "The Pennsylvania Law Weekly © 2024 ALM Global Properties, LLC. All rights reserved. Further duplication without permission is prohibited, contact 877-256-2472 or asset-and-logo-licensing@alm.com.
Source of image: Photo by Mick Haupt from www.unsplash.com.
Friday, July 11, 2025
Federal Court Rejects Complaint Containing Shotgun Pleading Against All Defendants
In this matter, the Complaint contained multiple counts that each adopted all of the allegations of all preceding Counts. The Complaint also asserted multiple claims against multiple Defendants without specifying which of the Defendants were more specifically responsible for which alleged acts or omissions. The court found that the Complaint did not allow for an understanding as to which claims were brought against which of the Defendants.
In its decision, the court separately reaffirmed the Pennsylvania law that holds that a Defendant hiring an independent contractor is not liable for the injuries sustained by that independent contractor’s employees from conditions that were equally obvious to the independent contractor and its employees.
Here, on the liability issues pled, the court found that the allegations in the Complaint did not establish any superior knowledge on the part of the Defendant at issue, any peculiar risk, or any retained control. Rather, the court found the allegations to be legal conclusion not supported by any specific facts.
Lastly, the court affirmed the general rule of law that, given that the Plaintiff’s estate had obtained a worker’s compensation recovery, the estate was not permitted to sue the decedent’s employer in tort.
In its decision, the court separately reaffirmed the Pennsylvania law that holds that a Defendant hiring an independent contractor is not liable for the injuries sustained by that independent contractor’s employees from conditions that were equally obvious to the independent contractor and its employees.
Here, on the liability issues pled, the court found that the allegations in the Complaint did not establish any superior knowledge on the part of the Defendant at issue, any peculiar risk, or any retained control. Rather, the court found the allegations to be legal conclusion not supported by any specific facts.
Lastly, the court affirmed the general rule of law that, given that the Plaintiff’s estate had obtained a worker’s compensation recovery, the estate was not permitted to sue the decedent’s employer in tort.
The court did allow the Plaintiff an opportunity to file a more specific Amended Complaint.
Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this 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.
Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this 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.
Source of image: Photo by Wesley Tingey on www.unsplash.com.
Monday, July 7, 2025
Court Denies Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Based on Forum Non Conveniens Doctrine in a Case Involving a Plaintiff from a Foreign Country
This matter arose out of an incident during which a pressure cooker that the Plaintiff had purchased exploded while the Plaintiff was using it.
The foreign Plaintiff brought suit in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on a products liability claim relative to a product made in America. Even though the product was not manufactured in Pennsylvania, the Pennsylvania based employee made media representations about the product by marketing it from its Pennsylvania studios. The court additionally noted that one of the Defendants had a principal place of business in Pennsylvania.
The court noted that, although the Plaintiff’s foreign country was an adequate forum for the litigation of his personal injury matter, a foreign Plaintiff can support her choice of forum by making a strong showing of convenience.
The court in this matter noted that the connection of this matter to Pennsylvania established the convenience element in this matter.
More specifically, the court noted that none of the evidence located in the Plaintiff’s home country was critical for the litigation of the claim.
The court additionally noted that, as for the witnesses based in the United States within the Defendants’ control, it would be significantly more convenient for those witnesses to travel to a trial in the United States rather than going abroad to a foreign country.
Notably, the court also emphasized, on the issue of convenience, that the depositions of any relevant witnesses could be conducted remotely.
The court also found that the completion of a trial in the United States would be more convenient to all of the parties interested.
Lastly, the court emphasized that Pennsylvania has an interest in the safety of products introduced into the stream of commerce from Pennsylvania.
The foreign Plaintiff brought suit in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on a products liability claim relative to a product made in America. Even though the product was not manufactured in Pennsylvania, the Pennsylvania based employee made media representations about the product by marketing it from its Pennsylvania studios. The court additionally noted that one of the Defendants had a principal place of business in Pennsylvania.
The court noted that, although the Plaintiff’s foreign country was an adequate forum for the litigation of his personal injury matter, a foreign Plaintiff can support her choice of forum by making a strong showing of convenience.
The court in this matter noted that the connection of this matter to Pennsylvania established the convenience element in this matter.
More specifically, the court noted that none of the evidence located in the Plaintiff’s home country was critical for the litigation of the claim.
The court additionally noted that, as for the witnesses based in the United States within the Defendants’ control, it would be significantly more convenient for those witnesses to travel to a trial in the United States rather than going abroad to a foreign country.
Notably, the court also emphasized, on the issue of convenience, that the depositions of any relevant witnesses could be conducted remotely.
The court also found that the completion of a trial in the United States would be more convenient to all of the parties interested.
Lastly, the court emphasized that Pennsylvania has an interest in the safety of products introduced into the stream of commerce from Pennsylvania.
The court in this matter ruled, after careful consideration of the private and public interest factors, that litigating this case in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania would not result in oppression and vexation to the defendants out of all proportion to the Plaintiff's convenience. As such, the court denied the Defendant's motion to dismiss this action on forum non conveniens grounds.
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 M. Beck of the Philadelphia office of the Reed Smith law firm for bringing this case to my attention.
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 M. Beck of the Philadelphia office of the Reed Smith law firm for bringing this case to my attention.
Eastern District Court Transfers Tioga County MVA Case to Middle District Court Under Doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens
In the case of Woodward v. General Motors, LLC, No. 2:25-CV-00605-JDW (E.D. Pa. June 6, 2025 Wolson, J.), the Eastern Federal District Court in Philadelphia granted a Motion to Transfer the case to the Middle District Court under the doctrine of forum non conveniens.
In this case, the Plaintiff's decedent's fatal motor vehicle accident involved occurred in rural Tioga County, which is located in the Middle District Court's jurisdiction. In part the Plaintiff's estate stated a crashworthiness products liability claim.
The court noted that, while the Plaintiff would prefer to litigate the case in the Eastern District, all other relevant factors favored the transfer of the case to the district where the accident happened.
The court additionally noted that any claims sounding in product liability are deemed to arise where the product was utilized and where the injury occurred.
In this matter, the court noted that the site of the accident, the relevant evidence, and the important witnesses were all located outside of the Eastern District.
As such, the Court granted General Motors' motion to transfer the case.
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 M. Beck of the Philadelphia office of the Reed Smith law firm for bringing this case to my attention.
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 M. Beck of the Philadelphia office of the Reed Smith law firm for bringing this case to my attention.
Source of image: Photo from Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts website.
Thursday, July 3, 2025
Decision Drives Home Importance of Preserving Objections and Issues for Appeal
In its non-precedential decision in the case of Munoz v. Children’s Hospital of Phila., 1388 EDA 2024 (Pa. Super. May 27, 2025 Stevens, P.J.E., Panella, P.J.E., and Lane, J.) (Op. by Stevens, P.J.E.), the Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed a trial court’s denial of post-trial motions following a medical malpractice verdict in the amount of over $11.5 million dollars in favor of the Plaintiff.
Of note, the court ruled that a prior waiver of a preservation of an issue cannot be overcome by the trial court later addressing a waived issue in response to post-trial motions.
In this matter, the court ruled that, even though the Defendant hospital had not physically taken over the care of the decedent, who was still at a different facility, the Defendant hospital had funtionally done so by instructing the other facility’s staff on treatment measures. The Superior Court found that this was sufficient to create an assumed duty under the Restatement (Second) of Torts §323.
The weight of the evidence claimed was found to have been waived by the defense by the failure of the defense to specifically identify the challenges to the weight of the evidence in the Defendant’s Rule 1925(b) statement.
The Superior Court additionally noted that, relative to the Plaintiffs’ emotional outbursts during the course of the trial, the Defendant neither asked for a curative instruction or a mistrial. As such, that issue was deemed to have been waived as well.
Lastly, the court on appeal ruled that the $14 million dollar verdict was not excessive under the facts presented.
Anyone wishing to review a copy of this non-precedential decision may click this 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.
Commentary: This decision reminds one of the importance of making sure all issues for appeal are preserved on the record.
Issues that one wishes to take up on appeal should be repeatedly preserved during the pre-trial course of the matter and again at trial and again during the post-trial proceedings wherever possible and even if the issues were previously preserved. Repeatedly confirm on the record, at every stage of the matter, that objections are continuing and that issues are being preserved for appeal.
Don't worry about irking the trial court judge with repeated statements of a preservation of an issue for appeal by objection or otherwise. Just keep going to bat for your client.
Keep in mind that trial court judges and appellate court judges will proactively look for opportunities to rule that an issue has been waived as part of their effort to avoid having to address an issue which may, in the end, require a matter to be tried all over again.
An attorney owes it to his or her client, and to herself or himself (in an effort to avoid any claims of legal malpractice), to repeatedly state on the record at every stage of the proceeding that you are preserving an objection or an issue for appeal so that there can be no finding by any judge that the issue has been waived.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)