In Mercer County, New Jersey, the Court dismissed plaintiff’s case in its entirety on the eve of trial, following the suppression of plaintiff’s medical evidence during the pre-trial conference.
Plaintiff claimed he slipped and fell on ice outside his apartment and suffered substantial injuries. Phil Degnan challenged plaintiff’s theory of liability and damages. The Court ruled that the suppression of plaintiff’s medical evidence precluded plaintiff from presenting his case to the jury.
Edward M. Napierkowski has recently joined Connor, Weber & Oberlies. Ed practices in the areas of insurance coverage, civil litigation and commercial litigation. He has litigated cases in various disciplines including environmental coverage, insurance recovery and construction defect litigation.
Can a buyer of residential real estate waive a seller’s disclosure obligations under Pennsylvania’s Real Estate Seller Disclosure Law?
The short answer is: maybe, but in any event, not absent an affirmative waiver. In Phelps v. Caperoon, — A.3d –, 2018 WL 3016477 (Pa. Super. June 18, 2018), the Pennsylvania Superior Court recently addressed the issue of whether an “as-is” clause in the agreement of sale implicitly waived a seller’s disclosure obligations under the Real Estate Seller Disclosure Law, 68 Pa. C.S. §§ 7101-7103, 7301-7314, et seq., (“RESDL”), but stopped short of giving a definitive answer as to whether an explicit waiver would be permitted. Continue reading
Product liability litigation in Pennsylvania was significantly altered by the Supreme Court’s 2014 ruling in Tincher v. Omega Flex, Inc., 628 Pa. 296 (2014), which overruled Azzarello v. Black Brothers Company, 480 Pa. 547 (1978), and returned to fact finders the responsibility to determine if a product was unreasonably dangerous, based on a full evaluation of the proofs offered by the plaintiff.
By: Pat Casey
A common practice in many state civil courtrooms throughout Pennsylvania, certainly in its two busiest courts – the Philadelphia and Allegheny Courts of Common Pleas – has recently been found to be lacking by the Superior Court: jury selection outside the presence of a judge. When civil litigators select a jury, they use a process in which the attorneys and the court work together to search for potential hardship, bias and prejudice among the prospective jurors through a series of written and oral questions, known as voir dire (meaning roughly “to tell the truth”). Commonly in civil litigation, the trial judge does directly not participate in this process. Instead, the trial judge will delegate one of his or her staff to handle this sometimes time-consuming endeavor of narrowing down a potential juror pool of hundreds to the 8 or 12 jurors who will ultimately hear the case, along with 1 or 2 alternate jurors.
By: Julia Jacobelli
On January 31, 2018, the Pennsylvania Superior Court issued an opinion which reaffirmed the validity of the hills and ridges doctrine, and provided additional guidance on the scope of the duties of property owners to remove snow and ice from their property.
In Collins v. Philadelphia Suburban Development Corporation and Ross’s Home Improvement, Inc., the Superior Court affirmed the decision of the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, granting summary judgment on the basis of the hills and ridges doctrine. Plaintiff, David Collins, claimed that on January 21, 2014, he slipped and fell on an ice or snow covered sidewalk on property owned by Philadelphia Suburban Development Corporation and leased to Plaintiff’s employer. Continue reading
The Court denied plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate the jury’s defense verdict following a trial in Monmouth County. Plaintiff had alleged that she fell down a set of unlit exterior stairs outside a community lodge.
Plaintiff had suffered a broken ankle in the accident. Phil Degnan successfully argued that the plaintiff could have chosen a safe path of travel, or simply turned on the light above the stairs, and should have used the handrail. No appeal has been filed.
Philip Degnan obtained a defense verdict in a lawsuit filed by a plaintiff that claimed his car was stolen in Philadelphia. The claim had been denied by the insurance carrier for fraud. Under cross-examination, plaintiff reluctantly admitted that he misrepresented certain facts about the alleged “theft.” Following the conclusion of plaintiff’s case in chief, the Court granted defendant’s Motion for a Directed Verdict.
Philip Degnan joins Connor, Weber & Oberlies practicing General Litigation, Premises Liability & Transportation.
In the most recent chapter of litigation spanning more than 23 years, on September 27, 2017, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed a subcontractor’s $1.68 million dollar award entered pursuant to the Contractor Subcontractor Payment Act. Monica Reynolds, co-counsel to the subcontractor, has represented the subcontractor since 2002 in its efforts to pierce the corporate veil and collect its $200,000 arbitration award obtained under the Contractor Subcontractor Payment Act (“CASPA”) in 1998. Continue reading