Summary Judgment Granted in Amusement Ride Case

White Water Landing Log Flume - Dorney Park

In the case of Tepox v. Six Flags Entertainment Corp., No. 2024-CV-2312 (C.P. Lehigh Co. May 16, 2025 Pavlack, J.), the court granted summary judgment in a case where a Plaintiff, while at an amusement park, was hit by water while walking over a bridge built over a log flume water ride 

The court noted that the bridge was designed for people to both observe the ride and to get wet by the splash the ride creates.

The court ruled that the no-duty rule/inherent risk doctrine applicable to amusement park accidents supported the entry of summary judgment in this case. 

The court noted that spectators and patrons assume certain risks when participating in amusements such that no duty exists on the part of the Defendant to protect against those risks.

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

Bad Faith Claim Goes Up In Smoke In Fire Loss Claim - But Right To Amend Allowed

In the case of Wendolowski v. Erie Insurance, No. 2023-CV-3806 (C.P. Lacka. Co. July 14, 2025 Nealon, J.), the court addressed Preliminary Objections filed by a carrier challenging the legal sufficiency of the insured’s bad faith claim arising out of a fire loss.

The court noted that, to recover for statutory bad faith, an insured must establish that the carrier did not have a reasonable basis for denying benefits under the policy and, that the carrier knew, or recklessly disregarded, its lack of a reasonable basis in denying the claim.

In this matter, the court noted that the Plaintiff’s Complaint baldly alleged that the carrier acted in bad faith in failing to pay his claimed loss in full. The court noted that the Plaintiff did not provide any facts arguably supporting any conclusion that the carrier lacked a reasonable basis for disputing the extent of the laws or that the carrier knew or recklessly disregarded the absence of such a reasonable basis.

As such, the court granted the carrier’s demurrer to the insured’s bad faith claim. However, the insured was permitted to file an Amended Complaint in an effort to provide the requisite factual support for a statutory bad faith claim.

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

Source of image:  Photo by Kurt Hudspeth on www.pexels.com.

Summary Judgment Granted In Favor of Restaurant in Foodborne Illness Claim Due to Lack of Expert for Plaintiff

In the case of Lawrence v. Texas Roadhouse Holdings, LLC, No. CI-23-00720 (C.P. Lanc. Co. May 22, 2025 Brown, P.J.), the court granted the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment in a case where the Plaintiff alleged that he contracted a foodborne illness after eating at a Texas Roadhouse restaurant in Lancaster County.

The court noted that, while medical tests completed on the Plaintiff after his visit to the restaurant raised the possibility of E. coli colitis, the record revealed that the Plaintiff was never definitively diagnosed with E. coli. The court also noted that the Plaintiff’s discharge diagnosis from his initial medical visit was for acute gastroenteritis, rather than any specific foodborne illness. It was also indicated that no stool sample was taken that could have been analyzed to definitively identify any foodborne illness.

In granting summary judgment in this matter, the court emphasized that the Plaintiff did not present any competent expert medical evidence to establish a causal link between the Plaintiff's consumption of food at the restaurant and his alleged illness.

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

I send thanks to Attorney Jennifer G. Shorr of the Philadelphia office of the Weber Gallagher law firm for bringing this case to my attention.

MEDIATION SUCCESS TIP FROM CUMMINS MEDIATION SERVICES

 

 TIP TO IMPROVE CHANCES 

FOR SUCCESS AT MEDIATION:

FULLY BRIEF YOUR CLIENT OR CLAIMS REPRESENTATIVE ON THE MEDIATION PROCESS BEFORE YOU GET TO THE MEDIATION

TEMPER THE EXPECTATIONS OF THE CLIENT OR CLAIMS REP AND REMIND THEM THAT THE GOAL IS NOT TO WIN, THE GOAL IS TO SETTLE FAVORABLY

Superior Court Reverses Trial Court Dismissal of a Matter as a Discovery Sanction

In its non-precedential decision in the case of Spigelmire v. Lehnhoff’s Landscaping, No. 1456 MDA 2024 (Pa. Super. July 1, 2025 Bowes, J., Olson, J., and Stabile, J.) (Op. by Stabile, J.), the Pennsylvania Superior Court overruled a trial court decision dismissing a personal injury case as a sanction for the Plaintiff’s discovery violations.

This case arose out of a slip and fall incident.

The Superior Court held that, while Plaintiff’s conduct was improper, that misconduct did not warrant as extreme consequence as a dismissal of the case.

During the course of the matter, one of the Defendants secured an Order compelling the Plaintiffs to produce records. When the Plaintiff still did not respond to the discovery requests thereafter, that Defendant filed a Motion for Sanctions. When Plaintiff’s counsel failed to appear at the sanctions hearing, the court ordered that the case be dismissed with prejudice.

Several days later, the Plaintiff requested the trial court to reconsider the dismissal, claiming that the Plaintiff missed the discovery deadline and the hearing on the Motion for Sanctions because her attorney failed to proper record and communicate the dates. The court denied the Motion for Reconsideration and the Plaintiff appealed. 

As noted, the Superior Court reversed, finding that the trial court abused its discretion in dismissing the matter.

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

Source: Article “Cases’ Dismissal Was Too Extreme Sanction For Plaintiff’s Discovery Violations, Pa. Appeals Court Says,” By Aleeza Furman of The Legal Intelligencer (July 2, 2025).

Source of image: Photo by Elena Mozhvilo on www.pexels.com.

Superior Court Rules, For First Time, that Gist of the Action Doctrine Does Not Apply To Support Dismissal of a Breach of Contract Claim

In the case of Swatt v. Nottingham Village, 2025 Pa. Super. 138 (Pa. Super. July 2, 2025) (en banc) (Op. by Kunselman, J.), a Pennsylvania Superior Court en banc panel addressed the issue of whether the gist of the action doctrine applies to contract actions.

This case arose out of a nursing home malpractice claim. The Plaintiff filed claims for both malpractice and breach of contract.

A central issue in the case was to be decided by the court is whether the gist of the action doctrine applied to breach of contract action.

Typically, under the gist of the action doctrine, courts have held that negligence claims cannot be pursued based on facts that confirm that the gist of the action actually involves a breach of contract claim.

In this case, the Superior Court was addressing the opposite situation, that is, whether the gist of the action doctrine prevents a Plaintiff from proceeding on a breach of contract claim that is actually based upon facts that give rise to a negligence claim.

Despite a number of prior cases confirming that the gist of the action doctrine does apply in breach of contract cases, this en banc panel of the Superior Court, after completing an exhaustive review of the gist of the action doctrine concluded that the doctrine does not apply to breach of contact actions.

Rather, the court noted that, under any set of facts, Plaintiff could make claims for both negligence and breach of contact where warranted.

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

The Concurring Opinion by President Judge Lazarus may be viewed HERE.

The Concurring Opinion by Judge Stabile may be viewed HERE.

The Concurring Opinion by Judge King may be viewed HERE.

Source of image: Photo by Andrea Piacquadio on www.pexels.com.

Philadelphia Trial Court Transfer Venue of Case to Wayne County

In the case of M.O. v. Lavco, LLC, No. 240800817 (C.P. Phila. Co. May 5, 2025 Anders, J.), the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas issued a Rule 1925 Opinion requesting the Superior Court to affirm its Order sustaining the Defendant’s Preliminary Objections to venue only and transferring the case to Wayne County.

According to the Opinion, this case arose out of a negligence claim asserted against a summer camp for children located in Wayne County, Pennsylvania. The details of the underlying incident were not provided in the Opinion.

The Defendant filed Preliminary Objections arguing that venue for the action was not proper in Philadelphia County.

After the parties completed discovery under venue issue, the court sustained the Preliminary Objections.

The court noted that, although the Defendant advertised itself to Philadelphia County residents, no Philadelphia County residents had attended the camp between 2020 and 2022, one child had done so in 2023, and two children had done so in 2024.

It was additionally noted that an organization based in Philadelphia County had paid funds to the Defendant to facility the attendance of dozens of campers at the Wayne County camp.

The court sustained the Preliminary Objections to venue and ordered that the case be transferred to Wayne County. The court noted that the Defendant’s registered office and principle place of business were not located in Philadelphia County, but rather, was located in Wayne County. The court otherwise found that the Defendant camp did not regularly conduct business in Philadelphia County.

It was additionally noted that the cause of action arose in Wayne County.

The court otherwise found that the quality and quantity of the Defendant’s contacts with Philadelphia County did not rise to the necessary level to subject the Defendant to venue in Philadelphia County.

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


Source: The Legal Intelligencer Common Pleas Case Alert, www.Law.com (July 2, 2025).