Monday, September 22, 2025
Trial Court Sheds Light On Why It Granted Summary Judgment in Allegedly Defective Street Light Case
In the case of Medina v. Zorrilla, June Term, 2023, No. 1233 (C.P. Phila. Co. June 9, 2025 Bright, J.), the court issued a Rule 1925 Opinion in a case of a pedestrian hit by a vehicle at an intersection with allegedly deficient street lighting.
The trial court assserted in its Opinion that its Order granting summary judgment in favor of the City Defendants should be affirmed where the Plaintiff did not offer up any evidence that the City had notice of an allegedly defective streetlight. The trial court also noted that there was no evidence that the City had negligently maintained the streetlight.
The Plaintiff asserted that he had provided adequate evidence to support a claim under the Trees, Traffic Controls and Street Lighting exception to the municipal immunity afforded under the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act, 42 Pa. C.S.A. §8542(b).
The trial court disagreed. The court noted that the Plaintiff never provided that any evidence that the City had notice, actual or constructive, regarding the alleged defect or malfunctioning of the streetlight where the accident happened.
The Plaintiff asserted that he had provided adequate evidence to support a claim under the Trees, Traffic Controls and Street Lighting exception to the municipal immunity afforded under the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act, 42 Pa. C.S.A. §8542(b).
The trial court disagreed. The court noted that the Plaintiff never provided that any evidence that the City had notice, actual or constructive, regarding the alleged defect or malfunctioning of the streetlight where the accident happened.
There was also no evidence in the record to suggest that, even if the City had notice, there would have been sufficient time to repair the allegedly defective streetlight before the accident happened.
The court did confirm that, once the City installed a streetlight in the area in question, it did have a duty to maintain it. However, the court found that there was no evidence in the record to show that the City failed to properly to maintain the streetlight in question.
Relative to any liability expert evidence offered by the Plaintiff, the court noted that the test completed on the streetlight by the Plaintiff’s expert were completed 1-2 years after the accident. Accordingly, the court stated that the test results did not shed any light onto the condition of the streetlight as of the day of the incident.
The court did confirm that, once the City installed a streetlight in the area in question, it did have a duty to maintain it. However, the court found that there was no evidence in the record to show that the City failed to properly to maintain the streetlight in question.
Relative to any liability expert evidence offered by the Plaintiff, the court noted that the test completed on the streetlight by the Plaintiff’s expert were completed 1-2 years after the accident. Accordingly, the court stated that the test results did not shed any light onto the condition of the streetlight as of the day of the incident.
As such, the trial court requested the appellate court to affirm the trial court's entry of summary judgment in favor of the defendants.
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).
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).
Sunday, September 21, 2025
Privilege Against Producing Patient-Safety Investigation Report in a Med Mal Case Can Be Waived
The trial court had ordered the disclosure over the report. The trial court also found that the hospital had waived any federal privilege by failing to raise it in its initial Motion to Compel.
On appeal, the Superior Court affirmed the trial court’s conclusion that the hospital had failed to timely preserve its claims of a federal law privilege.
On appeal, the Superior Court affirmed the trial court’s conclusion that the hospital had failed to timely preserve its claims of a federal law privilege.
As such, the Pennsylvania Superior Court has ruled that a discovery protection allowed under federal law is indeed waivable in medical malpractice suits in which the Federal Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act of 2005 is raised.
Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.
I send thanks to Attorney Michael J. Foley of the Foley Law Firm in Scranton, PA 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 Michael J. Foley of the Foley Law Firm in Scranton, PA for bringing this case to my attention.
Friday, September 19, 2025
Federal Court Bounces Premises Liability Case Back to State Court After Finding That Store Manager Was Fraudulently Joined in the Matter
This case arose out of an incident that occurred at a Dollar Tree store where the Plaintiff allegedly reached up to a top shelf to grab a coffee mug and the mug tipped over, spilling its contents onto her face, body and clothing. The Plaintiff alleged that the cup contained urine and other hazardous fluids.
The Plaintiff originally filed suit in state court. The Defendant removed the matter to federal court.
In removing the case to federal court, the Defendants asserted that the Plaintiff’s joinder of the store manager into the lawsuit was a purposeful effort to have residents from Pennsylvania on both the Plaintiffs side and the defense side of this matter so as to preclude removal on the basis that there was no diversity of citizenship.
The Plaintiff filed a Motion to Remand the case to state court.
The court held that, as pled, there were no grounds upon which the Plaintiff may maintain an action against the store manager under Pennsylvania law. In this Opinion, the court noted that the “Plaintiff’s argument is an exercising sophistry.” Accordingly, the court denied the Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand and granted the store manager’s Motion for a Dismissal.
Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.
I send thanks to Attorney Sarah E. Cobbs of the Pittsburgh office of the law firm of Thomas, Thomas & Hafer, LLP, for bringing this case to my attention.
Thursday, September 18, 2025
The Bus Stops Here: Trial Court Finds Venue Proper in Philadelphia Based on Busing Company's Defendant's Periodic Contacts in the County
![]() |
Philadelphia Skyline |
In the case of Warren v. Heagy, No. 240100294 (C.P. Phila. Co. May 2025 Anders, J.), the court issued a Rule 1925 Opinion requesting the Superior Court to affirm the trial court’s Order overruling the Defendant’s Preliminary Objections that Philadelphia County was an improper venue for the case.
According to the Opinion, this matter involved a motor vehicle accident during which a bus owned by the Defendant bus company collided with the Plaintiff’s vehicle.
The Defendants asserted in Preliminary Objections that the Defendant bus company had no physical presence in Philadelphia County, did not derive any revenue from customers located in Philadelphia County, and does not perform acts or maintain contacts in Philadelphia County sufficient to satisfy the quality-quantity tests for venue.
The court overruled the Preliminary Objections after noting that the record revealed that the Defendant bus company is in the business of transporting students to and from school and activities, including transporting students into Philadelphia County for purposes of activity such as field trips. It was noted that over the years, the business company had transported students into Philadelphia County about 10 times during one school year and 10 times during another school year, and 23-30 times on another recent school year.
After reviewing the law regarding the quality-quantity tests for proper venue, the court ruled that the evidence before it demonstrated that the Defendant regularly conducted business 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).
Monday, September 15, 2025
PA Supreme Court Issues Interim Policy On Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence By Judicial Officers And Court Personnel (Effective Dec. 8, 2025)
Here is a LINK to the interim policy that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has issued for judges and court personnel who want to use AI.
The policy allow for judges and court personnel to utilizes AI for summarizing documents, conducting preliminary legal research, and drafting initial versions of documents.
These rules which are identified as the “Interim Policy On The Use Of Generative Artificial Intelligence By Judicial Officers And Court Personnel" goes into effect on December 8, 2025.
It is anticipated that, in the near future, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court may also come out with rules to guide attorneys on the proper of AI in the practice of law relative to any filings with the courts.
Source: Article – “Pa. High Court Allow Judges, Personnel To Use AI For Document Summary, Preliminary Legal Research” By Max Mitchell of the Legal Intelligencer (Sept. 9, 2025).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)