Superior Court Reinstates Personal Injury Case That Trial Court Terminated for Lack of Activity

In the case of Eisenhart v. WellSpan Health, No. 1681 MDA 2024 (Pa. Super. Oct. 1, 2025 Bowes, J., Stabile, J., Stevens, P.J.E.) (Op. by Stabile, J.), the Pennsylvania Superior Court reinstated a premises liability case that had been terminated by the trial court for lack of activity.

The Superior Court noted that there was insufficient evidence in the record to establish that notice of a proposed termination that was sent out by the court, or that the termination order itself, was duly served by mail in accordance with Pa. R.C.P. 230.2.

The court noted that the rule is not satisfied when the Prothonotary fails to indicate anywhere in the record that notice was sent in the manner required by Pa. R.C.P. 236(b).

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


Source: “Court Summaries” By Timothy L. Clawges in The Pennsylvania Bar News (Nov. 3, 2025).

TORT TALK PASSES 4,500 MARK

 

4,500 Posts

Tort Talk, which has been in existence 

over the past 16 years since 2009, 

recently published its 4,500th post.

Sending thanks to all the Tort Talkers 

who read and contribute to the blog.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH

Daniel E. Cummins

Cummins Law

Clarks Summit, PA

BOOK PUBLISHED!! -- RAISING THE BAR: A Practical Guide to the Practice of Law -- by Daniel E. Cummins, Esq.

Proud to note that the Pennsylvania Bar Institute (PBI) has published my book entitled Raising the Bar:  A Practical Guide to the Practice of Law.  

The book, which is in e-book format, compiles my articles from over the past two decades on tips to improve your practice of law.

Remember those articles taking themes from The Godfather or Ferris Bueller's Day Off?  How about those articles applying holiday traditions to offer tips to improve your practice?  Or those other articles that simply provided tips to improve your depositions? And don't forget those articles that encourage you to take vacations and to take the time to develop your interests outside the practice of law.

These articles have all been compiled in a single book and can be purchased from the PBI at this LINK.

IT'S THAT TIME OF YEAR THAT CARRIERS ARE LOOKING TO CLOSE FILES --- CONSIDER UTILIZING CUMMINS MEDIATION

 BRING YOUR CASE TO A CLOSE

DANIEL E. CUMMINS, ESQ.

570-319-5899

dancummins@CumminsLaw.net

Contact CUMMINS MEDIATION SERVICES to set up your Mediation to bring your case to a close.

Who better to get an insurance company to increase their award

than the writer of Tort Talk and

an insurance defense attorney trusted by carriers to get them out of trouble?

HERE'S A SAMPLING OF JUST SOME OF THE FIRMS

WHO PREVIOUSLY SECURED SETTLEMENTS AT MEDIATIONS WITH CUMMINS MEDIATION SERVICES:

HOURIGAN, KLUGER & QUINN

LENAHAN & DEMPSEY

ABRAHAMSEN, CONABOY & ABRAHAMSEN

POWELL LAW

CEFALO & ASSOCIATES

LAW OFFICES OF JAMES D. FAMIGLIO

FOLEY LAW FIRM

NEEDLE LAW

OSTROFF GODSHALL

FISHER & FISHER

BLAKE & WALSH

CAPUTO & MARRIOTTI

HAGGERTY, HINTON & COSGROVE

SLUSSER LAW

VINSKO & ASSOCIATES

BISCONTINI LAW FIRM

MECADON LAW

LAW OFFICES OF LEO JACKSON

SOBO & SOBO

MARKS O'NEILL, O'BRIEN, DOHERTY & KELLY

RAWLE & HENDERSON

POST & SCHELL

SWARTZ CAMPBELL

BENNETT BRICKLIN & SALTZBURG

CIPRIANI & WERNER

MINTZER SAROWITZ, ZERIS, LEDVA & MEYERS

SHAY, SANTEE, KELHART & DESCHLER, LLC

McCORMICK & PRIORE

THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER

SCANLON, HOWLEY & DOHERTY

MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN

MARSHALL DENNEHEY

ELLIOTT GREENLEAF

COLEMAN LAW OFFICES

PennDOT

SELECTIVE INSURANCE IN-HOUSE COUNSEL OFFICE

NATIONWIDE INSURANCE IN-HOUSE COUNSEL

TRAVELERS INSURANCE IN-HOUSE COUNSEL

LACKAWANNA PRO BONO ANNUAL FUNDRAISING GALA -- PLEASE CONSIDER ATTENDING OR SPONORING

Court Rules that Winter Conditions in Parking Lot Were Open and Obvious To Slip and Fall Plaintiff

In the case of Hinton-Hardison v. Kohl’s, Inc., No. 2022-SU-003063 (C.P. York Co. Sept. 22, 2025 Menges, J.), the court granted a Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment in a slip and fall case. According to the Opinion, the incident occurred at a Kohl’s department store. Kohl’s had contracted with a snow removal contractor to take care of the property. That snow removal contractor subcontracted the work to a different snow removal contractor.

The subcontractor snow removal company filed the Motion for Summary Judgment. The Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff’s claims were barred by the Plaintiff’s assumption of the risk.

The court agreed.

The court noted that the condition of the ice and/or snow at issue in this case was the type that would be apparent to and recognized by a reasonable person, exercising normal perception, intelligence, and judgment. The court noted that its determination that reasonable minds on a jury could not differ as to the conclusion that the conditions in the parking lot presented as an obvious condition.

As such, the court felt “constrained” to grant the snow removal contractor’s Motion for Summary Judgment.

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

I send thanks to Attorney Jennifer P. Carter of the York, PA law firm of Griffith, Lerman, Lutz & Scheib for bringing this case to my attention.

LACKAWANNA PRO BONO 17TH ANNUAL FUNDRAISING GALA SET FOR NOVEMBER 6TH