PA Supreme Court Clarifies Burden of Proof Under Doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens

In the case of Tranter v. Z & D Tour, Inc., No. 32 EAP 2024 (Pa. Sept. 25, 2025) (Op. by Wecht, J.), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court provided clarity on the test to be applied in reviewing a Petition to Transfer Venue under the doctrine of forum non conveniens.

According to the Opinion, this matter involved a multi-vehicle collision that occurred in Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania involving a passenger bus and commercial vehicles. The crash resulted in five (5) deaths and numerous injuries.

Plaintiffs who resided in various locations across the country and abroad, filed personal injury lawsuits in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas against several corporate Defendants, all of which conducted business nationwide.

The Defendants sought to transfer the cases to Westmoreland County under the doctrine of forum non conveniens. The Defendants argued that a majority of the witnesses, including first responders and investigators, were located in Westmoreland County and would face significant hardship if required to travel over two hundred (200) miles to Philadelphia for trial.

The Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas granted the Defendants’ Petition to Transfer under the doctrine of forum non conveniens.

The Superior Court reversed, holding that the Defendants failed to show that the identified witnesses were “key witnesses” whose testimony was “critical” to the defense. The Superior Court also found that the affidavits of the witnesses provided did not sufficiently detail the necessity of the witnesses’ testimonies.

Higher up on the appellate ladder, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reversed the Superior Court’s decision in this matter.

The Supreme Court held that the Superior Court’s imposition of a “key witness” requirement was inconsistent with Pennsylvania precedent on the issue of the evidence required to secure a transfer of a matter under the doctrine of forum non conveniens.

The Supreme Court clarified that a party seeking a transfer of a matter under the doctrine of forum non conveniens must identify the burdened witnesses and provide a general statement of their respective testimony. The Supreme Court confirmed that the petitioner need not show that the testimony of the witnesses is “critical” or “necessary” to the defense.

As such, the Supreme Court upheld the trial court’s decision to transfer the cases out of Philadelphia County and to Westmoreland County as a proper exercise of the trial court’s discretion.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.  The Concurring Opinion by Justice Mundy can be viewed HERE.


Source: Justia Daily Opinion Summaries, www.justia.com (Sept. 26, 2025).

PA Supreme Court Rules that Parents Cannot Bind Children to an Agreement to go to Arbitration

In the case of Shultz v. Skyzone, No. 25 EAP 2023 (Pa. Sept. 25, 2025) (Op. by Donohue, J.), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that a parent who signs an Arbitration Agreement cannot bind a non-signing spouse or a minor child to its terms.

This matter arose out of claims that several minors were injured at trampoline parks operated by Skyzone in Philadelphia. In each instance, only one (1) parent signed a “Participation Agreement, Release, and Assumption Of The Risk” on behalf of their child, which included an arbitration provision waiving the right to sue in court.

After the injuries, both the signing and non-signing parents, along with the injured minors, filed lawsuits seeking personal injury damages. The Defendant filed Petitions to Compel Arbitration, relying upon the signed Agreements.

The trial court denied these Petitions, finding that the Agreements were enforceable only against the signing parents. The Superior Court affirmed, holding that neither the non-signing parents nor the minors were bound by the Arbitration provisions.

As noted, on further appeal, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed the Orders of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that parent lacked the authority to bind a minor to an agreement to arbitrate, as this would deprive the minor of judicial protections and oversight design to safeguard their interests. As noted above, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court also held that a parent who signs an Arbitration Agreement cannot bind a non-signing parent, or minor child, to its terms.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.  Justice Brobson's Concurring and Dissenting Opinion can be viewed HERE.


The Pennsylvania Supreme Court the same decision in the consolidated case of Santiago v. Philly Trampoline Park, No. 24 EAP 2023 (Pa. Sept. 25, 2025) (Op. by Donohue, J.). The Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision in this case can be viewed at this LINK.  Justice Brobson's Concurring and Dissenting Opinion can be viewed HERE.


Source: Justia Daily Opinion Summaries, www.justia.com (Sept. 26, 2025).

Source of image: Photo by Ben Moses M on www.unsplash.com.

Appellate Court Overrules Trial Court's Application of Archaic Local Rule

The Superior Court has ruled against another archaic local rule in its recent decision in the case of Biros v. U Lock, Inc., No. 113 WDA 2024 (Pa. Super. Aug. 1, 2025 Lazarus, P.J., Bowes, J., and King, J.) (Op. by Lazarus, P.J.).

In this matter, the court vacated the trial court Order out of the Common Pleas of Westmoreland County in which the trial court had denied, with prejudice, an appellant’s Motion to file her Pa. R.A.P. 1925(b) Concise Statement of Errors Complained of on Appeal, nunc pro tunc.  

The appellate court noted that the appellant had timely filed her Notice of Appeal but her otherwise compliant electronic filing was rejected by a County Prothonotary pursuant to a local rule of court requiring that notices of appeal be filed in person or by mail.  

The appellate court further held that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to deny the appellant’s Motion to Leave to File a Rule 1925(b) Statement while the appellant’s Petition for Allowance of Appeal to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania remain pending.  

The Superior Court noted that, Pa. R.C.P. 205.4(e)(2) bars any refusal of an otherwise compliant pleading for filing based upon a requirement of a local rule pertaining to the electronic filing of legal papers.  The court found that Westmoreland County’s requirement that notices of appeal could be filed only in person or by mail was such a local rule. 

Accordingly, the appellate court ruled that the appellant’s initial filing was properly and timely filed and was sufficient to initiate the appeal.  

As such, the appellate court vacated the trial court’s Order and remanded the case for further proceedings.  

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

Source:  The Legal Intelligencer State Appellate Case Alert, www.Law.com (Aug. 19, 2025).

Source of image: Photo by Priyank V on www.unsplash.com.

Claims of Immunity Must Be Pled as New Matter, Not Via Preliminary Objections

In the case of Cullen v. Boomer Flooring, LLC, No. 6009-Civil-2025 (C.P. Monroe Co. July 15, 2025 Williamson, J.), Judge David J. Williamson of the Monroe County Court of Common Pleas addressed various Preliminary Objections filed in a premises liability case.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff was employed by a plumbing subcontractor and was working on a construction site when he fell through holes in the floor that were covered by cardboard and suffered injuries as result.

In this case, one of the Defendants filed Preliminary Objections asserting that, since that Defendant was a statutory employer, it was entitled to immunity for any tort related injuries suffered by a subcontractor’s employees.

The Plaintiff in this matter filed Preliminary Objections to this Defendant’s Preliminary Objections and asserted that any defenses regarding immunity should not be considered during the Preliminary Objections stage and should instead be pled as new matter.

After reviewing Pa. R.C.P. 1030(a) which list all affirmative defenses, including “immunity from suit,” the court agreed with the Plaintiff’s argument and sustained the Plaintiff’s Preliminary Objections to the Defendant’s Preliminary Objections.

The court otherwise reviewed other Preliminary Objections asserted by the Defendants relative to the Plaintiff’s claims of “carelessness and recklessness conduct.” Relying upon the Superior Court decision in the case of Monroe v. CBH2O, LP, 286 A.3d 785 (Pa. Super. 2022), the court allowed the allegations of recklessness to proceed into discovery. As such, the Preliminary Objections asserted by the Defendants in this regard were overruled.

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


Source: The Legal Intelligencer Common Pleas Case Alert, www.Law.com (Sept. 11, 2025).

Source of image:  Photo by Sylvia Brazzoduro on www.pexels.com.

Trial Court Relies on Deliberative Process Privilege To Quash Subpoenas

In the case of Helring v. Scranton Police Pension Board, No. 2024-CV-771 (C.P. Lacka. Co. Aug. 11, 2025 Nealon, J.), the court entered a detailed Order granting a Defendant’s Motion to Quash subpoenas addressed to certain witnesses.

According to the Order, this matter involves a former Scranton Police Officer, whose disability pension was revoked following his federal felony conviction for knowingly stealing federal funds from the City of Scranton.

The former police officer filed this local agency appeal and, in anticipation of a hearing, served subpoenas upon members of the Police Pension Board seeking to compel their attendance at a hearing to testify regarding the standards they applied in the discretionary decision-making process that resulted in the revocation of the Plaintiff’s disability pension.

In response to the Motion to Quash, the court granted the same after confirming that the proposed subjects of inquiry identified by the Plaintiff were protected from disclosure by the “deliberative process privilege” which applies in cases involving governmental agencies.

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

Superior Court Provides Further Guidance on Quality/Quantity of Contacts Test for Venue Over a Defendant in a Particular County

In the case of Pickering v. Associated Realty Prop. Mngt., Inc., 2446 EDA 2024 (Pa. Super. Sept. 18, 2025 Lazarus, P.J., Kunselman, J., and King, J.) (Op. by Kunselman, J.), the appellate court affirmed a trial court Order sustaining Preliminary Objections as to venue and transferring a Philadelphia County case to Centre County, the location of the Plaintiff’s decedent’s death.

The Superior Court noted that whether the Defendants regularly conduct business in a particular county typically presents a mixed question of fact and law, with questions of fact dominating.

Accordingly, the Superior Court noted that Pennsylvania trial courts have wide discretion in determining if venue is proper based upon a Defendant’s business activities.

According to the Opinion, this matter arose out of an incident during which the Plaintiff's decedent fell through an 11-floor access hatch to a garbage shoot. The Plaintiff's decedent sustained fatal injuries.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff's decedent had leased a condominium unit in the building from an individual who lived in Virgina. The condominium unit was located in Centre County, Pennsylvania.

Neither the condominium nor the unit owner had any contact with Philadelphia County.

The court reviewed the contact that the various other Defendants who had manufactured and/or built the access hatches in the building. The court noted that none of those Defendants had any physical presence, employees, or agents located in Philadelphia County. However, the businesses, which were headquartered in California, did conduct business in Philadelphia County.

The Pennsylvania Superior Court ruled that trial courts can compare county sales to a company’s national sales figures when determining whether venue is proper in a particular county. The Superior Court rejected a Plaintiff’s argument that only a company’s county-by-county Pennsylvania sales should be reviewed when determining venue.

The appellate court noted that comparing county sales to a company’s national figures sales would paint a more accurate picture of the extent that the company actually conducted business in a particular county in Pennsylvania.

As noted, the court affirmed the trial court’s sustaining of Preliminary Objections on the issue of venue, which resulted in the case being transferred out of Philadelphia and over to Centre County.

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


Source: Article – “Courts Can Look To National Sales Figures When Determining Venue, Pa. Superior Court Clarifies,” By Rile Brennan of The Legal Intelligencer (Sept. 19, 2025).

Source of image:  Photo by Ali Rezaei on www.unsplash.com.

LACKAWANNA PRO BONO ANNUAL GALA