SIGNIFICANT CASE SUMMARIES
Pennsylvania Case Summaries
Santiago v. Philly Trampoline Park, LLC
Pennsylvania Supreme Court
No. 24 EAP 2023
Decided: September 25, 2025
Release of liability signed by only one parent does not release liability as to child or other parent.
Background
Patrons that enter Philly Trampoline Park’s facilities (“Sky Zone”) must execute a Participation Agreement, Release and Assumption of the Risk document. When the patron is a minor, a parent is required to execute the Agreement on the minor’s behalf. In this case, Ms. Jennifer Santiago and Mr. Ryan Shultz were required to sign the Agreement for their children, which included an arbitration clause. While at Sky Zone those parents’ children were injured when an adult jumped on a trampoline in areas designated for children. Further, in each case, the other parent filed suit individually and on the injured child’s behalf seeking to recover damages related to the injuries suffered at Sky Zone. In reliance of its signed Agreements, Sky Zone petitioned to compel arbitration and stay the lawsuits. The Trial Court denied Sky Zone’s Petition and the Superior Court upheld the Trial Court’s rulings.
Under Pennsylvania law, an agency is established where there is a clear manifestation by the principal that the agent shall act for the principal; the agent’s acceptance of the undertaking; and the understanding that the principal is to be in control of the undertaking. Further, arbitration clauses are subject to strict construction and marriage alone does not establish that one spouse has the power to act for the other. Furthermore, under Pennsylvania law, minors are sui juris and incompetent to enter into contracts. Also, a minor’s natural guardian has no inherent authority, without a court’s approval, to exercise power over a minor’s right to bring a cause of action due to bodily injury. Importantly, Pennsylvania law and rules of procedure promote the long standing policy of protecting minors.
Holding
On appeal, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania held that Sky Zone’s Agreement did not bind the non-signing spouse and injured minors because (1) there was no evidence to establish agency where one parent gave the other authority to sign the Agreement thereby binding them to its terms and (2) the Agreement acts to forfeit the minors’ rights to have a claim adjudicated in court, making it an unsanctioned exercise of power over the minors’ property, and the Agreement lacks the carefully constructed network of protections for the interests of the minors, rendering the Agreement unenforceable.
Questions about this case can be directed to Randy Burch at (610) 332-7025 or rburch@tthlaw.com.
Tranter v. Z&D Tour, Inc.
Pennsylvania Supreme Court
No. 18 EAP 2024
Decided: September 25, 2025
Supreme Court clarifies standard for forum non conveniens.
Background
The instant litigation arose from a catastrophic multi-vehicle collision that occurred on January 5, 2020 in Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania. As a result, four sets of Plaintiffs filed civil Complaints in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas against various Defendants, including FedEx, Sioux Trucking, UPS, and Penske – all entities involved in the collision, which conduct business nationwide. Defendants filed Preliminary Objections, and the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas opened limited venue discovery. The Defendant parties obtained statements from several fact witnesses, all of whom detailed the personal and professional hardships they would face if required to travel to Philadelphia County, as opposed to Westmoreland County.
Defendants then filed and/or joined Petitions to transfer venue pursuant to Pa.R.Civ.P. 1006(d)(1), based upon forum non conveniens. The Trial Court granted the Petitions and transferred all four cases to Westmoreland County. The Trial Court noted that it must look at the totality of the circumstances, and that relevant considerations include hardships imposed upon witnesses attributable to distance, burden of travel, time away from family or work, and disruption to business operations, as well as the difficulty in obtaining witnesses and access to proof. Plaintiffs appealed. The Superior Court reversed the Trial Court’s Order, holding that the individuals identified by Defendants were not “key witnesses.” Defendants appealed.
Holding
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that the Superior Court’s imposition of the “key witness” requirement was inconsistent with the governing law related to forum non conveniens. Prior case law makes clear that a defendant petitioning for transfer of venue must place the grounds on the record, but no “particular form of proof” is required. The Court further stated that the petitioner necessarily must be able to identify the burdened witnesses and to provide the court with a general statement regarding the expected testimony, for such is necessary to establish that the identified individuals are, indeed, potential witnesses. As such, the Supreme Court reversed the Order of the Superior Court and the matters were transferred to Westmoreland County.
Questions about this case can be directed to Gabrielle Martin at (610) 332-7003 or gmartin@tthlaw.com.
Pickering v. Associated Realty Pro. Mgmt., Inc.
Pennsylvania Superior Court
No. 2446 EDA 2024
Decided: September 18, 2025
Pennsylvania Superior Court affirms Order transferring case to county where the injury occurred when out-of-state company did not “regularly do business” in the selected venue.
Background
This action arose from the untimely death of Justine Gross, who fell into a building’s garbage chute in State College. Pickering, named administrator, brought suit in Philadelphia against the manufacturer and distributor of the garbage chute access door. These companies filed Preliminary Objections challenging venue, arguing that they do not regularly do business in Philadelphia, making venue there improper. Neither company is based in Pennsylvania, but both do occasional business across the state. Neither company targets any particular region of the state and does not do enough business in any specific county in order to be considered to “regularly do business” in either Philadelphia or Centre County.
Plaintiff asserted that such Defendants would effectively become immune from suit in Pennsylvania if they could not be found to regularly conduct business in any county and that trial courts should only consider an out-of-state company’s Pennsylvania sales when determining whether their county is a proper venue. The Trial Court rejected Plaintiff’s argument, reasoning that such an analysis overlooks the rarity of the company doing business in the county and that a proper venue could be found against such companies on another basis, such as the transactional venue (the county where the injury occurred).
Holding
The Superior Court affirmed. Plaintiff’s arguments were based on a recent Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision Hangey v. Husqvarna Prof’l Prods., Inc., 304 A.3d 1120 (Pa. 2023), in which venue was deemed proper in Philadelphia although only .005% of the company’s national sales were in Philadelphia because Husqvarna made targeted attempts, although unsuccessful, to regularly transact business in the city. The present case is distinguishable because Defendants did not similarly target Philadelphia. A proper venue can still be found where the cause of action arose, even if a defendant cannot be said to “regularly conduct business” in any specific county. Here, the cause of action arose in State College, making Centre County the proper venue for adjudication of Plaintiff’s claims.
Questions about this case can be directed to Charles Nutaitis at (610) 332-7020 or cnutaitis@tthlaw.com.