Court Allows Punitive Damages Claims to Proceed in Dog Bite Case

In the case of Clifford v. Dickson, No. S-1799-25 (C.P. Schuylk. Co. Feb. 12, 2026 Burke, J.), the court addressed various issues raised by way of Preliminary Objections filed against a Complaint in a dog bite case.

Of note, the court rejected the Preliminary Objection filed by the Defendant relative to the Plaintiffs’ description of the Defendant’s dog as “vicious.” The court noted that it did not see any prejudice from the use of the term “vicious” at this early stage of the proceedings.  The court did note that the use of the term “vicious” may not prove to be admissible at trial.

With regards to the Preliminary Objections filed with regards to the Plaintiff’s claims of outrageous conduct and evil motive, as well as with respect to the request for punitive damages, the court found that the facts pled in the Complaint supported the claims and allegations in this regard.

Here, the court found that the conduct of the Defendant was allegedly more than mere or ordinary negligence. In the Complaint, there were allegations that the Defendant acted in an intentional, willful, wanton, or reckless manner. More specifically, the court noted that there were allegations that the Defendant not only allowed her two pitbulls and another large dog to be unleashed, unrestrained, and uncontrolled on the day of the accident, it was also alleged that the Defendant dog owner had allowed this to happen on prior occasions as well.

The court also pointed to the allegations that the Defendant had failed to vaccinate the dogs in question.

The court additionally noted that it would premature to dismiss the Plaintiff’s request for punitive damages at the pleadings stage. Rather, based, in part, on the Superior Court's decision in the case of Monroe v. CBH2O, LP, 286 A.3d 785, 799-800 (Pa. Super. 2022), the court felt that it would be more appropriate for the Defendant to seek to attempt to have the punitive damages claims dismissed after the close of discovery by way of a Motion for Summary Judgment.

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


I send thanks to Attorney Thomas J. Newell, a plaintiff's attorney who exclusively represents dog attack victims, for bringing this decision to my attention.

Source of image:  Photo by Pozva on www.unsplash.com.

Superior Court Affirms Trial Court's Refusal to Give Increased Risk of Harm Jury Instruction in Medical Malpractice Case

In its non-precedential decision in the case of Matthews v. Hosp. of the Univ. of Penn., No. 1163 EDA 2024 (Pa. Super. Feb. 26, 2026 Lazarus, P.J., Kunselman, J., and King, J.) (Op. by King, J.), the Pennsylvania Superior Court denied a medical malpractice Plaintiff’s attempt to overcome a defense verdict in a Philadelphia County case.

In part, the Plaintiff argued that the trial court had erred in denying the Plaintiff’s request for an increased risk of harm jury charge.

Upon review of the record, the court found that the jury instruction was not warranted because the Plaintiff’s witnesses, including expert witnesses, failed to testify as to how the Defendant’s alleged delay in performing a cesarean section caused or increased the risk of harm to the Plaintiff’s child. 

The court noted that the record revealed that the Plaintiff’s expert did not state, within a reasonable degree of medical certainty, that the Defendants’ alleged failure to perform a C-Section earlier could either cause or increase the risk the type of brain injury suffered by the child.  As such, the Superior Court ruled that the Plaintiff was not entitled to the increased risk of harm jury instruction under the evidence that was presented at trial.

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


Source: Article – “Insufficient Expert Testimony Sinks Push To Overturn Med. Mal Defense Win, Pa. Appeals Court Rules.” By Riley Brennan The Legal Intelligencer (Feb. 27, 2026).

PLEASE CONSIDER CUMMINS MEDIATION FOR YOUR NEXT 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 Refuses to Weigh The Evidence on Appeal

In its non-precedential decision in the case of Kopeissi v. Shipwire, Inc., No. 2789 EDA 2024 (Pa Super. Jan. 23, 2026 Lazarus, P.J., Bowes, J., and Ford Elliot, P.J.E.) (Mem. Op. by Bowes, J.), the court addressed post-trial motions in a matter in which the Plaintiff challenged the trial court’s denial of his request for a new trial on punitive damages.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff was allegedly injured when unloading pallets of Peloton weights from a tractor trailer that had allegedly been improperly stacked on top of each other.

At trial, the Defendant admitted that it had allegedly stacked the pallets did not contest that it acted negligently. Rather, its defense at trial was that it did not act recklessly.

At trial, the jury found that the tractor trailer company was not negligent. However, the jury found that the Defendant that had stacked the pallets and who had admitted negligence but denied recklessness was 80% negligent.  However, the jury found that the actions of that Defendant were not reckless.

After trial, the Plaintiff argued that the jury’s verdict on the issue of reckless was against the weight of the evidence. It was also argued that improper remarks during closing arguments prejudiced the jury and tainted their deliberations on the issue of recklessness.

On appeal, the Superior Court rejected both arguments.

Relative to the claim that the jury’s finding on the issue of recklessness was against the weight of the evidence, the Superior Court noted that the Plaintiff essentially wanted the Superior Court to re-weigh the evidence and come to a different result. The Superior Court noted that it was refusing to do so. The Superior Court otherwise noted that it found no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s conclusion that the jury’s verdict did not shock the trial court’s conscience.

As such, the denial of the Plaintiff’s post-trial motions was affirmed.


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

Article: How To Bypass an Impasse At Mediation

Here is a LINK to my article entitled "How To Bypass an Impasse at Mediation" which has just been published in the March/April edition of the Pennsylvania Lawyer magazine.

With this article I gathered lessons from my experience as a certified Federal Middle District Court Mediator and as a private Mediator with Cummins Mediation in order to provide tips on how to get past those difficult times at Mediation where there seems to be no way to move forward with the negotiations.  The hope is that these suggestions will enable you to realize more success at more Mediations.

Proud to note that this is my 200th published article.  Hope you enjoy it and that it helps you with your practice.

Should you ever need assistance with trying to bring a case of yours to a close through a Mediation, please consider Cummins Mediation.

570-319-5899

dancummins@cumminslaw.net

Abington Heights Mock Trial Team Wins Regional Championship! Headed Back to States!

The Abington Heights High School Mock Trial Team from Clarks Summit, Lackawanna County won the 2026 REGIONAL Mock Trial Championship last night and are on their way to the STATE Championship Competition in Harrisburg, PA which is set to take place later this month!

If you have a high school student in your house, or one about to go to high school, please encourage them to consider doing Mock Trial even if they have no intentions or idea of a career in the law.  There is no better activity for increasing a student's self-confidence, public speaking skills, and analytical skills.  Mock Trial students are required to think on their feet and pivot in response to sudden changes in circumstances.  

It is also a great activity for comradery as the students really support one another during the course of the season.

Sending thanks to all the jurors who volunteered their time to serve last night and to those who volunteered through out the season.  The competition cannot succeed without those local lawyers, paralegals, law office staff members, and others who are willing to volunteer.  Thank you.

Also sending thanks to the Lackawanna Bar Association and its Executive Director, Lee Ann Munley, as well as Kaitlin McDonough of that office for all their time and work to make the program a success.

Also sending thanks to Lori Siegle, the Executive Director of the Monroe County Bar Association and her staff for all of their time and work on Mock Trial in their District and for the Regional Competition this year.

Also sending great thanks to the District Coordinator for the Mock Trial Competition, Mackenzie Wilson, a great attorney with Munley Law, for donating all of her time and hard work to make the local competition a success.

Let's go Comets!  Keep soarin' onto the States!  So proud!

Trial Court Overrules Preliminary Objections to Allegations of Recklessness and Claims For Punitive Damages

In the case of Fisher v. Leo, No. 2025-CV-05941 (C.P. Luz. Co. Feb. 4, 2026, Pierantoni, J.), the court overruled a Defendant’s Preliminary Objections to allegations of recklessness and punitive damages. 

In so ruling, the court cited to the Pennsylvania Superior Court case of Monroe v. CBH20, L.P., 286 A.3d 785, 798 (Pa. Super. 2022).

The court also noted that the issue of the validity of claims for recklessness and punitive damages are more appropriate for consideration at the summary judgment stage.

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


I send thanks to Attorney Peter Biscontini of Biscontini Law for bringing this case to my attention.