Summary Judgment Granted in Case of Box that Fell From Above and Hit Plaintiff in a Store

In the case of McEntire v. Wal-Mart Supercenter, No. 5:24-CV-5992 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 25, 2025 Leeson, J.), the court granted summary judgment in the case in which the Plaintiff alleged injuries as a result of a box falling and hitting the Plaintiff in the store.

With regards to the Plaintiff’s claim that they needed more time for discovery, the court rejected that claim as being without merit. The court noted that the Plaintiff had already been provided with two (2) extensions. The court stated that litigants who ignore the court’s Orders and deadlines do so at their peril.

With regards to the merits of the Motion for Summary Judgment, the court held that a Plaintiff who fails to produce any evidence beyond the fact that they were simply allegedly hit by a falling box in a store has not adequately proven either a breach of any duty or causation. The court noted that, without any evidence as to why the box fell, summary judgment was appropriate.

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 by Bernard Hermant on www.unsplash.com.

Trial Court Drastically Reduces Punitive Damages Award

In the case of Clemmons v. Lehr, June Term, 2020 No. 0478 (C.P. Phila. Co. April 9, 2025 Bright, J.), the trial court addressed post-trial motions in a tractor trailer accident case, including a Motion for Remittitur relative to a punitive damages award of $25 million dollars. 

The jury otherwise awarded $1.2 million dollars in compensatory damages.

The trial court granted the Motion for Remittitur, holding that the amount awarded by the jury for punitive damages was unduly excessive and out of bounds as compared with the evidence.

In this regard, the trial court noted that the punitive damages award was approximately twenty-one (21) times the amount of the compensatory damages verdict. The court found that the punitive damages award was grossly excessive in comparison to the compensatory damages award.

The trial court reduced the punitive damages award to $1 million dollars.

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

Source: The Legal Intelligencer Weekly Case Alert, www.Law.com (Aug. 28, 2025).

Source of image:  Photo by Logan Voss on www.unsplash.com.

NOVEMBER 6, 2025 IS DATE FOR LACKAWANNA PRO BONO ANNUAL GALA

 

Superior Court Grants New Trial in a Medical Malpractice Case

In the case of Lewis v. Reading Hospital, No. 986 MDA 2024 (Pa. Super. Sept. 2, 2025 Bowes, J., Olson, J., and Stabile, J.) (Op. by Stabile, J.), the Pennsylvania Superior Court issued an Opinion which it reviewed the correct approach to increased risk claims in medical malpractice cases.

In this medical malpractice case, the court vacated the verdict in favor of the Plaintiff and remanded the case for a new trial.

In part, the Superior Court ruled in favor of the defense after finding that the trial court had failed to grant a mistrial after the Plaintiff’s attorney told the jury that the defense was unable to retain an expert on causation, which statement was not consistent in the evidence of the record.  In this case the Plaintiff had been successful in precluding one of the defense experts from testifying at trial.  The appellate court held that a party who succeeds in excluding evidence on legal grounds may not mislead a jury by telling the jury that such evidence never existed in the first place.

The Superior Court also agreed that the trial court erred in giving an instruction and a verdict form to the jury which equated the negligence element of factual cause with an “increased risk of harm” argument.

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


I send thanks to Attorney Michael D. Pipa of the Harrisburg, PA law firm of Saxton & Stump for bringing this case to my attention.

Trial Court Refuses to Grant Plaintiff an Extension to Secure a Proper Certificate of Merit

In the case of Winters v. Patient First Pennsylvania Medical Group, No. 2024-03638-PL (C.P. Chester Co. Dec. 17, 2024 Binder, J.), the court denied a Plaintiff’s Motion for Additional Time to Provide a Certificate of Merit in support of a medical malpractice claim.

In this matter, the Plaintiff sued the Defendant medical providers relative to alleged negligence in prescribing certain medications to the Plaintiff’s minor daughter.

The court denied the Plaintiff’s Motion after finding that the Plaintiff failed to demonstrate good cause for an extension of time.

The Court noted that the Plaintiff’s counsel merely cited conflicting litigation and work demands.  Plaintiff's counsel also offered speculative reliance on his hope that the Plaintiff’s former physician would provide the necessary written statement. 

The court otherwise granted the Defendant’s Motion to Strike a Purported Certificate of Merit that the Plaintiff had previously produced. The court found that the previously provided written statement pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1042.3(e) was insufficient given that it was written by a pharmacist.

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


Source: The Legal Intelligencer Common Pleas Case Alert, www.Law.com (Aug. 14, 2025).

In-Home Caregiver Cannot Sue Care Recipient for Negligence Related to Injuries Sustained While Providing Care

In the case of Fisher v. Gingerich, No. 1729 MDA 2024 (Pa. Super. Aug. 27, 2025 Stevens, P.J.E., Bowes, J., and Stabile, J.) (Op. by Stevens, P.J.E.), the court affirmed the trial court’s entry of summary judgment in a case in which an in-home caregiver sued the person she was caring for relative to injuries suffered from the care recipient’s alleged negligent failure to cooperate in the care.

The appellate court ruled that an in-home caregiver cannot sue a person they are caring for on claims of injuries allegedly suffered from the care recipient’s negligent failure to cooperate with the care.

The court noted that, under Pennsylvania law, a care recipient does not owe a caregiver any duty to participate and cooperate with the care. The court also noted that the nature of the risk imposed and the foreseeability of the harm also weighed heavily against the imposition of any duty on care recipients under the circumstances presented. In this regard, the court noted that care recipients are often untrained, elderly and have physical disabilities.

The appellate court otherwise noted that recognizing such a duty of care owed by care recipients to caregivers would open the flood gates of litigation from any care provider who struggled to care for a patient they deemed to be uncooperative.

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 Kampus Productions on www.pexels.com.

Issues of Fact Preclude Summary Judgment Against Landlord-Out-Of Possession In Parking Lot Slip and Fall Case

In the case of Alexander v. ECM Realty Management, Inc., No. CV 24-00061 (C.P. Lyc. Co. 2025 Carlucci, J.), the court denied a Motion for Summary Judgment in a slip and fall case involving ice and/or snow in a parking lot area.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff slipped and fell at the rear of a property that her husband rented from the Defendants. The Plaintiff had previously been a tenant of the same premises.

The court noted that, while it was apparently undisputed that the Defendants were landlords out-of-possession of the apartment, the Plaintiff was maintaining that the Defendants retained control over the parking lot area.

In this matter, the court agreed that, where a landlord leases out some areas of a property, but retains control over others, a landlord may be found negligent in the maintenance of the areas over which the landlord retained control. 

Here, however, the court noted the record was clear that the Defendants were landlords out-of-possession relative to the apartment.

The dispute in this matter was whether the parking space where the Plaintiff slipped and fell should be considered a portion of the leased apartment under the control of the tenant, or a “common area” over which the landlord Defendant had retained control.

The court found that the issues of fact in this regard prevented the entry of summary judgment. As such, the Defendant's Motion was denied.

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


Source: The Legal Intelligencer Common Pleas Case Alert, www.Law.com (Aug. 14, 2025).

Source of image:  Photo by Erik McLean on www.unsplash.com.