eNotes: Liability – August 2023 – Federal

SIGNIFICANT CASE SUMMARIES

FEDERAL CASE SUMMARIES

Mallory v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co.
United States Supreme Court
No. 21-1168

Decided: June 27, 2023

In a split decision, U.S. Supreme Court holds Pennsylvania court has personal jurisdiction over Norfolk Southern because the railroad had registered to do business in Pennsylvania, and thereby consented to personal jurisdiction over it for any cause of action.

Background

Robert Mallory sued his former employer, Norfolk Southern, in Pennsylvania state court under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act, a federal workers’ compensation statute permitting railroad employees to recover damages for their employers’ negligence. Mr. Mallory alleged that he developed cancer as a result of his 20 years of work for the railroad in Ohio and then Virginia. The railroad obtained a dismissal due to lack of personal jurisdiction over it in Pennsylvania, as none of Mr. Mallory’s work occurred in Pennsylvania, and the railroad did not have a corporate headquarters in the state, and was not a PA corporation.

The case was appealed to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which sided with the railroad, stating that a court may only exercise general jurisdiction over a foreign corporation if its affiliations within the state are so continuous and systematic as to render the corporation essentially “at home” in the forum State, such as being the place of incorporation or the principal place of business. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that Pennsylvania’s statute requiring foreign corporations to consent to general jurisdiction in Pennsylvania was involuntary, unconstitutional, and no longer comports with the Due Process Clause.

The U.S. Supreme Court decided to review this decision and to overrule the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, holding that Pennsylvania’s exercise of personal jurisdiction over the railroad did not offend the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Thus, as they have done for over 100 years, states may continue to require foreign corporations to consent to general jurisdiction within the state as part of registering to do business.

Holding

The U.S. Supreme Court vacated the prior decision of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, held that Pennsylvania statute requiring out-of-state companies that register to do business in the Commonwealth to agree to appear in its courts on “any cause of action” against them was constitutional, and remanded the case.

Questions about this case can be directed to Rick Murphy at (412) 926-1443 or rmurphy@tthlaw.com.

McClure v. Love’s Travel Stops & Country Stores
United Stated District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
No. 1:21-CV-00334-YK

Decided: May 23, 2023

District Court grants summary judgment for Defendant store where Plaintiff failed to establish actual or constructive notice of slippery condition.

Background

McClure parked his tractor trailer at a Love’s location and went inside near the diesel entrance to purchase food and fuel. He then exited through the same entrance. McClure did not recall seeing any liquid on the floor while entering or exiting. He then fueled his tractor and grabbed a cup to fill in store. He walked back through the same entrance and, at this time, slipped and fell. Plaintiff McClure filed his Complaint in a Pennsylvania state court, and Defendant removed to federal court. Plaintiff alleged negligence against Defendant Love’s.

McClure was unable to identify what he fell on through discovery and deposition, but claimed there was a black, foreign substance on the ground. However, McClure admitted he did not see any such substance in the towel that Defendant used to wipe the area. Plaintiff did not present any evidence showing how long the alleged slippery substance was on the ground prior to his fall or how long the floor was slippery. He admitted he did not know if he had any knowledge or facts which would show that Love’s was aware of a slippery surface in that area. McClure further admitted that he “wouldn’t know” if the area where he fell was slippery at the time of his fall. Defendant Love’s then moved for summary judgment.

Holding

The District Court granted Defendant’s Motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff McClure failed to provide evidence showing Defendant’s actual notice of the slippery condition. Nothing showed that the slippery condition was there at that time, or a frequently reoccurring condition. Plaintiff McClure failed to provide evidence of constructive notice as well. McClure could not provide a time frame on how long the condition existed, beyond identifying that Defendant had not swept the floors in roughly four hours. The Court indicated that without any further facts, this was too speculative a time frame for the existence of a condition. The Court then granted Defendant’s Motion for summary judgment because notice of the condition could not be established.

Questions about this case can be directed to Logan Nagle at (717) 255-7234 or lnagle@tthlaw.com.