SIGNIFICANT CASE SUMMARIES
Pennsylvania Case Summaries
DLP Conemaugh Mem’l Med. Ctr., LLC v. Doe
Pennsylvania Superior Court
No. 680 WDA 2024, No. 681 WDA 2024
Decided: April 7, 2026
Prejudice and jury confusion have key roles in determining when to consolidate cases.
Background
Five plaintiffs filed suit against DLP Conemaugh Memorial Medical Center, LLC, DLP Healthcare, LLC, d/b/a Duke LifePoint Healthcare (collectively “DLP”), Laurel Pediatrics Associates (“LPA”), Johnny Barto (“Barto”) and other medical defendants alleging Barto sexually abused the plaintiffs as minors when he was a pediatrician with LPA and held privileges at DLP. The suit subsequently expanded to include over 140 plaintiffs with claims of sexual abuse against Barto, spanning the course of several decades. Barto pled guilty to sexually abusing family members and entered a nolo contendere plea to claims of sexual misconduct against minor plaintiffs and is now serving a prison sentence. After years of discovery, plaintiffs requested a case management order to have bellwether cases coordinated for all pretrial purposes but tried individually. DLP opposed consolidation based on lack of commonality.
The trial court entered an order directing that four bellwether cases be combined and tried together. The court acknowledged that the selected cases may not be proper for joinder, however, it was the court’s intention to select a broad assortment of cases that would provide the court and parties with the opportunity to resolve a variety of issues that would arise in motion practice and allow the cases to more effectively move towards resolution. The Pennsylvania Superior Court granted DLP and LPA leave to appeal. In determining whether to consolidate actions, the court must first determine whether the actions involve a common question of law or fact, or if they arise from the same transaction or occurrence. The court must then look at whether consolidation would prejudice any party, and finally the court must ensure that there is no risk of jury confusion, should the cases be consolidated.
Holding
The Superior Court decided that there are no common question of fact between the consolidated cases. These cases arose at different times and places over a period of sixteen years. However, the cases do have a common question of law. All four actions allege the same cause of action, therefore, the same legal standards will apply in each case to determine questions of liability. Thus, the first prong for consolidation is met. However, the second prong of the test is to determine prejudice to the parties. The Superior Court discussed how evident it is that there would be prejudice to the defendants. The jury’s sympathy will lie with the plaintiffs, and each plaintiff will present emotional accounts of heinous crimes that have been alleged, all of which they suffered as minors. Defendants would be exposed to the serious risk of guilt by association. Further, there is the possibility that the jury will confuse which evidence applies to which defendant. The Superior Court was not confident that a limiting instruction would alleviate prejudice or promote judicial efficiency in such a highly emotional setting. Therefore, the Superior Court held the trial court abused its discretion and vacated the consolidation order.
Questions about this case can be directed to Zoe Wilson, at (717) 255-7231 or zwilson@tthlaw.com.
Garcia v. Foley, Inc.
Pennsylvania Superior Court
No. 3200 EDA 2024
Decided: March 31, 2026
Superior Court reverses motion to dismiss based on forum non-conveniens to transfer action to another state.
Background
Plaintiffs appealed the lower court’s order granting a motion to dismiss based on forum non conveniens. Plaintiff Garcia, a New Jersey resident, was struck by a excavator while at a worksite in New Jersey. Suit however was filed in Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania. In its motion, Caterpillar, Inc. argued without specificity that pertinent facts, witnesses, and treating physicians were all located in New Jersey. In opposition, Plaintiffs produced affidavits from some of the witnesses stating that it would not be problematic to appear and testify in Philadelphia. Plaintiffs maintained that Caterpillar leased the excavator to Foley, Inc. who required lease payments be sent to Philadelphia. The parties already scheduled a joint inspection of the excavator in Bensalem, Pennsylvania, and depositions in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The lower court granted the motion without prejudice for Plaintiffs to re-file in New Jersey.
Holding
The Superior Court reversed the lower court because a motion to dismiss on grounds of forum non conveniens may only be granted if “weighty reasons” support disturbing a plaintiff’s choice of forum and an alternative forum is available. Further, a court should not dismiss for forum non conveniens unless justice strongly militates in favor or relegating plaintiff to another forum. In this case, the Superior Court noted that the defendants failed to identify with specificity the witnesses and summarize their testimony. Further, the Superior Court found that the lower court abused its discretion and failed to properly analyze the private and public factors, and the lower court did not fully evaluate if “weighty reasons” existed to move the forum from Pennsylvania to New Jersey.
The Superior Court held that defendants failed to present a sufficient supportive factual basis and, therefore, failed to carry their burden of establishing “weighty reasons” for dismissing case
Questions about this case can be directed to Randy Burch at (610) 332-7025 or rburch@tthlaw.com.
Harris v. Hutchinson Sportsmen’s Club
Pennsylvania Superior Court
No. 1007 WDA 2025
Decided: February 4, 2026
Pennsylvania Superior Court affirms grant of summary judgment where the alleged dangerous condition was open and obvious.
Background
Appellant was riding an electric bicycle when he noticed a speed bump and giant hole ahead of him on the road. To avoid the hole, he rode on the far-right side of the road. All of a sudden, his handlebars turned to the right, and he fell, resulting in fractured bones in both arms. He filed a Complaint sounding in negligence against Hutchinson’s Sportsmen’s Club (“HSC”), the owner of the road where the accident occurred, as well as other entities. Appellant averred that HSC acted negligently by failing to post a sign or otherwise warn of the dangerous condition, among other things, which resulted in him being thrown from his bicycle. HSC filed a motion for summary judgment. The trial court granted HSC’s motion for summary judgment, finding that Appellant failed to make a prima facie case for negligence against HSC. Appellant subsequently appealed.
In a negligence action, a plaintiff has the burden to make a prima facie case by proving: (1) a duty was owed; (2) that duty was breached; (3) the breach was the cause in fact of the injury; and (4) damages were sustained. The duty owed by a landowner to one who enters the land depends on the status of the entrant. For invitees, a possessor of land is not liable for an invitee’s physical harm if the dangerous condition is known or obvious, except when the possessor of land should anticipate harm nonetheless. For licensees, a possessor of land is liable for a licensee’s bodily harm if he (A) knows of the condition, (B) realizes it involves an unreasonable risk; (C) has reason to believe that the licensee will not discover or realize the risk; and (D) permits them to enter the land without exercising reasonable care to make the condition reasonably safe or warn of it and risk involved.
Holding
The Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed the trial court’s order granting summary judgment, holding that regardless of Appellant’s status as an invitee or licensee, he failed to make a prima facie case of negligence. Appellant testified that he saw the speed bump and the hole, which prompted him to ride on the far right-side of the road, indicating that the condition was open and obvious. The court added that encountering speed bumps and holes are reasonably foreseeable conditions and risks a bicyclist may expect. Appellant failed to provide evidence that HSC knew of the condition, realized it involved an unreasonable risk, and had reason to believe it would not be discovered. In addition to a failure to establish breach of a duty owed, there was also a causation issue, as Appellant alleged he was injured by an unknown third condition that he did not see while trying to avoid the speed bump and hole.
Questions about this case can be directed to Kaylie O’Donnell, at (717) 255-7643 or kodonnell@tthlaw.com.
Jackson v. Live! Casino & Hotel Phila. & Stadium Casino RE, LLC
Pennsylvania Superior Court
2026 Pa. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 475*, 2026 LX 93763, 2026 WL 507865
Decided: February 24, 2026
Pennsylvania Superior Court upholds inference of negligence against the Defendant without the use of an expert; allows for spoliation instruction regarding unpreserved surveillance footage; and jury award of $3 million.
Background
Plaintiff Shante Jackson was at Live! Casino and Hotel in Philadelphia on April 17, 2022, to celebrate her birthday when, unprovoked, she was assaulted in the restroom by intoxicated patrons. Plaintiff’s hair was torn out, and she suffered fractures to her nose and orbital bones, as well as spinal injuries. Plaintiff, after the incident, contacted the Casino’s head of security, and retained counsel who made an official preservation request for all surveillance video capturing the perpetrators, or Plaintiff. Several videos were preserved, but none of Plaintiff, and none of the perpetrators prior to the incident, despite their presence at the Casino for a number of hours. Prior to trial, the Casino sought to have any evidence or testimony regarding the alleged intoxication of the perpetrators excluded from trial, which the Court denied. At the close of trial, the jury was given a spoliation instruction, allowing them to infer the unpreserved video footage would have been unfavorable to the Casino.
At trial, Plaintiff won and was awarded $3,071,958.90. The Casino appealed. On appeal, the Casino raised seven issues challenging the jury’s verdict. The first four issues attacked the adequacy of Plaintiff’s evidence. Specifically, the Casino pointed to the lack of evidence that the Casino failed to exercise reasonable care, the lack of expert testimony regarding the Casino’s security program, the lack of evidence showing a history of bathroom assaults, and a lack of evidence showing that Plaintiff’s injuries would not have occurred with additional security measures. The Casino also argued that the inclusion of testimony regarding the alleged intoxication of the perpetrators was unduly prejudicial, that there was no evidence the Casino intentionally erased video evidence, and that the $3 million award was so excessive as to require remittitur.
Holding
The Superior Court held that the jury was permitted to infer negligence from the preserved videos and Plaintiff’s testimony that the perpetrator was intoxicated, which contradicts the Casino’s policy, requiring removal of intoxicated patrons. Further, the Superior Court determined that casino security was not beyond the knowledge of the jury and did not require an expert. The Court addressed the spoliation argument by stating the jury was permitted, not required, to adversely infer the unpreserved videos, based on the timely requests for preservation and the negligible associated cost. Next, due to the Casino’s policy regarding intoxicated patrons, the intoxication of the perpetrator was highly probative and was not unduly prejudicial. Finally, the Court stated the $3 million award was not excessive based on the emotional trauma, embarrassment, and humiliation Plaintiff endured, and the award does not “shock [a] sense of justice.”
Questions about this case can be directed to Danielle Schwartz at (717) 237-7135 or dschwartz@tthlaw.com.
Reiss v. Hanchick
Pennsylvania Superior Court
No. 2499 EDA 2025
Decided: March 12, 2026
Pennsylvania Superior Court held that the trial court properly granted the Defendants’ motion to dismiss as the Plaintiff’s claims were barred by the applicable two-year statute of limitations and the discovery rule did not apply.
Background
In 2018, Plaintiff Walter Stanley Reiss rented an apartment from Defendants John C. Hanchick III, John C. Hanchick Jr., and JCH Properties, LLC. Appellant vacated the apartment in October 2018, when he was sentenced to serve a term in prison. Approximately six years later in October 2024, Plaintiff filed a complaint seeking damages exceeding $600,000, alleging that Defendants illegally entered the apartment after his incarceration, and dispose of, converted, or allowed the theft of his personal property. Plaintiff claimed he did not discover the loss of his personal property until his release in October 2022.
Defendants filed an answer and new matter asserting the proper termination of the lease, notice to quit, and compliance with the applicable Pennsylvania landlord-tenant procedures. Furthermore, they asserted Plaintiff’s claims were barred by the two-year statute of limitations. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss and argued Plaintiff’s failure to respond to the new matter resulted in admission to the asserted defenses, and the claim was untimely. The trial court granted the motion to dismiss and Plaintiff appealed.
Holding
The Superior Court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Plaintiff’s complaint. Under Pennsylvania’s fact pleading system, averments of fact require denial, and the failure to plead to factual averments contained in a new matter constitutes an admission to those facts. Plaintiff’s failure to respond to Defendants’ new matter was an admission by Plaintiff that the statute of limitations had expired.
The Superior Court determined that absent the admission of the statute of limitations defense, Appellant’s claims were untimely. Under the Landlord and Tenant Act, a two-year statute of limitations applies. Plaintiff’s argument that he did not discover the loss of his property until his release in October 2022 was unpersuasive, as Plaintiff had written a letter in July 2020 demonstrating he was aware of the alleged loss of his property. Because Plaintiff filed his complaint in October 2024, more than two years after he became aware of the alleged injury, his claims were time-barred. Accordingly, the Superior Court affirmed the trial court’s order dismissing the Complaint.
Questions about this case can be directed to Rachel Chan at (610) 332-7012 or rchan@tthlaw.com.