Source: http://kentmcbride.com/news/news-archive.php
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 14:15:16+00:00

Document:
Attorneys from K/M’s Iselin, NJ office, obtained summary judgment for its client in a personal injury lawsuit involving a unique set of facts and a serious back injury with extensive medical treatment. Marc A. Deitch, Esq., also of K/M’s Iselin, NJ office, authored the brief and Brad Lawrence argued successfully at a hearing held in the Ocean County Superior Court - Civil Law Division before The Honorable Arnold B. Goldman, J.S.C.
In this atypical negligence case, the plaintiff, a volunteer fireman, was called to the scene of a motor vehicle accident. The underlying accident involved two trucks and a car. Both trucks overturned and spilled sand/dirt in the roadway. K/M represented the alleged tortfeasor. The plaintiff arrived at the scene approximately 30 minutes after the accident occurred. After arriving, the plaintiff began shoveling dirt to dam up liquid that spilled on the road. Between 40-50 minutes after the underlying accident, the plaintiff injured his back while shoveling.
For the purposes of the summary judgment motion, liability for the underlying accident was not considered at issue. K/M argued that the firefighter’s complaint should be dismissed as a matter of law because the motor vehicle accident was not the proximate cause of the plaintiff's back injury.
In opposition, plaintiff’s counsel argued that, as with the great majority of proximate cause cases, material questions of fact existed that required the matter to be submitted to a jury. The plaintiff’s back injury flowed naturally and foreseeably from the defendant's negligent role in the underlying accident. Applying the classic test, “but for” the motor vehicle accident, the plaintiff would not have been called to the scene, would not have shoveled and would not have been injured. Moreover, plaintiff argued, that pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2A:62A-21, rescue workers are now permitted to recover for injuries which are directly or indirectly the result of the negligence of any other person. This statute abrogated New Jersey’s “Firefighters’ Rule,” which would have previously barred this type of action.
In announcing his decision granting K/M’s motion, Judge Goldman noted that a defendant’s conduct must be a cause-in-fact of the plaintiff’s injury, and the injury must be a foreseeable consequence of the conduct. Although the language of N.J.S.A. 2A:62A-21 is broad, the statute does not provide a plaintiff with the right to recover under a theory of strict liability. A plaintiff-rescue worker still retains the burden to prove the elements of negligence, including proximate causation. In this case, the court found there was not a sufficient nexus between the underlying accident and the plaintiff’s injury due to the passage of time between the accident and the injury, along with the lack of emergent circumstances. The plaintiff was not hurt because of the underlying accident, he was hurt while doing his job shoveling.
For further information about the law and facts of this case, please contact Bradley R. Lawrence, Esq. at (732) 781-1321 or blawrence@kentmcbride.com, or Marc A. Deitch, Esq. at (732) 781-1309 or mdeitch@kentmcbride.com.
In a recent trial held in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas before the Honorable Gregory E. Smith, K/M’s client avoided having to pay any damages to plaintiff as a result of a successful pretrial tender of defense and indemnification to a codefendant as well as a damages defense put forward at trial by K/M’s Jay Branderbit that kept the jury’s damages award below the policy limit of the indemnitor.
K/M’s client, a regional supermarket, was sued along with the supermarket’s floor cleaning contractor for injuries sustained by Plaintiff in a May 2011 slip and fall. Plaintiff’s principal injury was a torn tendon in the ankle, which resulted in two (2) surgeries, the first of which repaired the tendon and the second, which took place in April of 2014, to address multiple areas of neurologic pain that resulted from the original injury and first surgery. This second surgery did not, unfortunately, succeed, and plaintiff remained symptomatic in the foot and ankle.
A member of the military, Plaintiff also claimed that she had suffered a sizable lost earning capacity as she had been forced to assume a desk job, was passed over for promotion and was now slated for ultimate discharge from the armed services as a result of serial failures of physical fitness testing resulting from her inability to run, carry, climb and do other physical activities required in the military. Plaintiff’s earning capacity claim ranged from just under $450,000.00 to more than $1.5 million.
Pursuant to the acceptance of the tender, K/M’s client’s codefendant’s insurance carrier agreed to indemnify up to their policy limit of $1 million. By the time of trial, the codefendant party itself was out of business and had no assets. Thus, as this was a pre-Fair Share Act case, any verdict rendered in the case of over $1 million would be the sole responsibility of K/M’s client as strict joint and several liability still applied. As such, despite the acceptance of the tender and the stipulation as to negligence on the part of both defendant’s K/M’s Jay Branderbit continued to defend the case on damages at trial.
After a five (5) day trial that included testimony from a total of eight (8) experts, the jury rendered a verdict for Plaintiff in the amount of $575,000.00. Given the amount awarded, which was well under the codefendant’s $1 million policy limit, K/M’s client does not have to pay any money to Plaintiff.
Brian M. Searls, Esquire, of K/M’s Cherry Hill, New Jersey office won a Motion for Summary Judgment in a case involving alleged personal injuries stemming from a motor vehicle accident. The matter was venued in the Passaic County Superior Court - Civil Law Division with the Honorable Thomas J. LaConte, J.S.C. presiding over the matter. The basis of the motion was that the plaintiff failed to pierce the verbal threshold in light of the fact that he did not sustain permanent injuries that were not likely to heal to function normally with further medical treatment.
On July 22, 2010, plaintiff was traveling eastbound on Route 46 in Clifton, New Jersey in the left lane when a large dump truck pulled out of Route 46 East cutting off both lanes of traffic and forcing his vehicle to brake. This caused a third vehicle operated by K/M’s client to strike his vehicle from behind. As a result of the collision, plaintiff alleged permanent injuries to his neck and back.
At the close of discovery, plaintiff’s treating physician submitted a Permanency Certification, finding that plaintiff sustained permanent injuries which were directly attributable to the subject accident. However, after a thorough investigation into plaintiff’s medical history and having elicited damaging testimony at plaintiff’s deposition, it was discovered that not only did plaintiff sustain only temporary, soft tissue injuries, but that he in fact denied having any history of back injury to a subsequent treating physician.
After two sets of submissions, oppositions, and reply briefs, Judge LaConte granted K/M's Motion for Summary Judgment, finding that there was insufficient proof (notwithstanding the Permanency Certification) to suggest that plaintiff sustained permanent injuries which would otherwise overcome the limitation on lawsuit threshold.
For further information about the law and facts of this case, please contact Brian M. Searls, Esq. at (856) 862-3705 or bsearls@kentmcbride.com.
On April 11, 2014, Marc A. Deitch of Kent/McBride won a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment to dismiss plaintiff’s claims for punitive damages against our client. The parties argued the Motion in the Middlesex County Superior Court, Law Division, before the Honorable Douglas K. Wolfson, J.S.C.
The plaintiff in this case claimed personal injuries as the result of a motor vehicle accident on January 14, 2011, in South Brunswick, New Jersey where Kent/McBride’s client operated a vehicle in which plaintiff was a passenger. After the accident, the client was charged and convicted of DWI. The Complaint alleged that plaintiff sustained serious and permanent personal injuries, and demanded both compensatory and punitive damages.
Kent/McBride’s Motion contended that plaintiff failed to prove, by clear and convincing evidence that Kent/McBride’s client acted in a willful and wanton manner sufficient to warrant punitive damages. Reliance was placed both on statutory and case law which set forth non-exclusive lists of aggravating factors which, if present, would be sufficient so as to allow a punitive damages claim to survive Summary Judgment. In the subject matter, Judge Wolfson agreed with Kent/McBride’s contentions that, despite defendant’s DWI, additional aggravating factors did not exist to support the claim for Punitive Damages.
For further information about the law and facts of this case, please contact Marc A. Deitch. at (732) 781-1309 or Mdeitch@kentmcbride.com.
On January 17, 2014, Bradley R. Lawrence, Esquire, of K/M’s Iselin, New Jersey office won a Motion for Summary Judgment in a case involving alleged personal injuries stemming from a motorcycle accident. The matter was venued in the Bergen County Superior Court - Civil Law Division with the Honorable Estela M. De La Cruz, J.S.C. presiding over oral argument.
At the time of the accident, the plaintiff was a passenger on a motorcycle operated by Mr. Lawrence’s client. Both parties testified that a phantom vehicle passed the motorcycle on the right, then suddenly cut into their lane. In order to avoid a collision, the defendant swerved to the left. Because of the evasive action, the motorcycle began to fishtail. The defendant briefly lost control, but did not crash. Unfortunately, the plaintiff lost her grip around the defendant’s waist and was thrown off. K/M’s client immediately regained control of the motorcycle and rushed to the plaintiff’s aid.
At deposition, Mr. Lawrence elicited testimony from the plaintiff that had the defendant not taken evasive action, the phantom vehicle would have struck the motorcycle. Additionally, the plaintiff testified that there was nothing that the defendant could have done to prevent the accident.
In opposition, counsel for the UM/UIM carrier argued that whether the phantom vehicle even existed was, in and of itself, an issue that the jury would have to decide, and, thus, summary judgment was not appropriate. Relying heavily on the answers to interrogatories and deposition testimony of the parties, Judge De La Cruz sided with K/M’s client’s position and found that no facts had been adduced to show any negligence on the part of the defendant motorcycle operator.
Kent/McBride is pleased to announce that one of its founding attorneys, Kevin G. Dronson, has been invited to join the prestigious Claims and Litigation Management Alliance (CLM) and will serve as the Secretary of the South Jersey CLM chapter. The CLM is a nonpartisan alliance comprised of thousands of insurance companies, corporations, Corporate Counsel, Litigation and Risk Managers, claims professionals and attorneys. Through education and collaboration the organization’s goals are to create a common interest in the representation by firms of companies, and to promote and further the highest standards of litigation management in pursuit of client defense. Selected attorneys and law firms are extended membership by invitation only based on nominations from CLM Fellows.
Kevin is a LaSalle University and Widener University School of Law graduate, and is admitted to the Bars of Pennsylvania and New Jersey, as well as to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania as well as the District of New Jersey.
Kevin has practiced law in the defense litigation arena his entire career. He has arbitrated, mediated and tried to verdict numerous cases for insured and self-insured clients throughout the Courts of New Jersey and Pennsylvania. Kevin has given lectures and seminars to a number of insurance companies and self-insured entities on numerous topics including commercial premises litigation, automobile litigation, automobile insurance coverage issues, trial tactics, and insurance fraud litigation. He has also served as a defense arbitrator in connection with a number of litigated cases.
David C. Malatesta, Jr., the managing attorney of the Delaware office of Kent/McBride, successfully defended his client at trial in the case of the Estate of Brett Griffin v. Sigma Alpha Mu Fraternity, et al. The New Castle County, Delaware trial stemmed from the unfortunate and untimely death of Brett Griffin, a pledge of the Sigma Alpha Mu fraternity at the University of Delaware. The wrongful death lawsuit was filed in April of 2009 by Brett Griffin’s parents following their son’s death in November of 2008. Mr. Griffin, who was 18 years old at the time, died as a result of alcohol poisoning after a night of drinking at a party being thrown by several members of the local fraternity chapter to which he was pledging at the time.
Essentially, the claims against K/M’s client were that he had taken part in ritual hazing leading up to the ultimate demise of Mr. Griffin, and that he had responsibility for the conduct of Mr. Griffin on that fateful night when Griffin passed away. K/M’s client was sued personally, and at stake was not only homeowners insurance proceeds for the client’s family, but also personal assets in the event of an excess verdict.
The trial, which lasted two weeks and garnered national media attention, ended on November 15, 2013 with the twelve member jury returning a unanimous verdict in favor of Mr. Malatesta’s client, who was the President of the local chapter at the time of Griffin’s death. The jury found that Mr. Malatesta’s client did not personally act, or act in concert with others, to haze Brett Griffin in the weeks leading up to his death, and also found that he was in no way responsible for Brett Griffin’s death. Other parties, including the fraternity, were parties to this case and settled long before trial.
For further information, please contact David at 302-357-3121,or Dmalatesta@kentmcbride.com.
On September 13, 2013, the Appellate Division issued an Opinion Approved for Publication in the case of Citizens United Reciprocal Exchange v. Perez, et al. Kent/McBride, as attorneys for defendants Dexter Green and his insurance carrier, have, at this point, successfully represented their clients at both the Trial Court and Appellate levels.
Factually, codefendant Sabrina Perez was involved in an auto accident with Dexter Green on April 21, 2010. Ms. Perez’s carrier, by way of Declaratory Judgment action, attempted to completely void her Basic Insurance Policy (with $10,000 in liability limits), on the basis of insurance fraud. Perez did not list her boyfriend as a household resident and driver on her insurance application. At stake for Mr. Green’s carrier is the amount of its exposure for his UIM claim, i.e., the amount of the credit/set-off, if any, to be applied to Green’s $100,000 UM/UIM policy.
On Appeal, the plaintiff carrier argued, in pertinent part, that the Appellate Court’s rationale in Varjabedian was flawed, and sought to overturn Varjabedian’s holding that the liability coverage for an innocent third party under a voided policy is $15,000/$30,000. In other words, plaintiff insurance carrier argued that, for persons who choose to purchase New Jersey’s Basic Insurance Policy, the liability coverage for an innocent third party under a voided policy should be zero ($0.00), or at the very least, no more than $10,000.
...a carrier seeking to retroactively void coverage based upon the prior conduct of its insured tortfeasor cannot rely on the alternative Basic Policy’s lack of mandated coverage to avoid providing the minimum compulsory non-cancelable $15,000/$30,000 liability limits.
The Appellate Division affirmed the Trial Court’s decision. From the defendant carrier’s standpoint, the set-off to Green’s $100,000 UM/UIM policy limits is $15,000, i.e., and its UM/UIM exposure is $85,000. The plaintiff carrier is expected to seek review by the New Jersey Supreme Court.
For further information about the law and facts of this case, please contact Marc A. Deitch, Esq. at (732) 781-1309 or Mdeitch@kentmcbride.com.
On July 15, 2013, Marc A. Deitch, Esq., of Kent/McBride received a defense verdict in a Jury Trial held before the Honorable Mark M. Russello, of the Superior Court, Law Division, in Bergen County, NJ.
Plaintiff had claimed injuries from a July 1, 2009 motor vehicle accident, at which time the tractor/trailer operated by co-defendant jackknifed on the southbound New Jersey Turnpike, blocking all or parts of four lanes of travel. Plaintiff had just brought his vehicle to a stop behind co-defendant, when his vehicle was struck from behind by the tractor/trailer owned by K/M client, Twin Angels Transport LLC, and operated by K/M client Edwin Tencio, who could not stop in time.
All Defendants stipulated liability, and the case was tried on the issue of damages only. Because both defendants operated commercial vehicles, plaintiff was not subject to New Jersey’s verbal threshold suit limitation.
Plaintiff claimed that the trauma of the accident proximately caused him to suffer an accelerated onset and/or worsening of multiple sclerosis (“MS”), as well as soft tissue neck injuries, that included a disc bulge at C6-7.
Trial commenced on July 1, 2013 with the arguments of Motions in Limine filed by K/M to preclude the testimony of plaintiff’s experts, Dr. Robin Leder and Dr. Nabil Yazgi on the grounds that their respective reports constituted inadmissible net opinions. Judge Russello granted the Motion as to Dr. Leder and precluded her testimony as to the alleged causation of plaintiff’s MS. The Court reserved decision on that portion of the Motion that pertained to Dr. Yazgi, pending a Rule 104a Hearing that took place on July 3, 2013. After the Hearing, the Court denied defendants’ Motion as to Dr. Yazgi, who testified at Trial.
During Trial, defendants rejected plaintiff’s contention that his MS was proximately caused by the accident. During the course of discovery, K/M obtained a slew of plaintiff’s medical records from prior to July 1, 2009. At trial, defendants presented evidence that plaintiff had suffered from symptoms of remitting/relapsing MS since at least as far back as 2000, which included many of the symptoms plaintiff alleged were caused by the accident. Plaintiff complained of such symptoms to his primary care physician and was referred to a neurologist as recently as two weeks before the July 1, 2009 accident.
Likewise, K/M uncovered a cervical MRI from 2007 revealing that plaintiff had disc bulges at C4-5, C5-6 and, notably, at C6-7, two years before the accident. K/M also successfully was able to argue that plaintiff’s alleged soft tissue injuries were limited to a temporary neck strain and an abrasion to his head that did not require stitches, as reflected in the July 1, 2009 Emergency Room records from Hackensack University Hospital.
During the cross-examination of Plaintiff’s physician, Dr. Yazgi, Mr. Deitch confirmed that the doctor’s conclusions were based on inaccurate facts and incomplete medical records. Furthermore, Dr. Yazgi testified that, by the time of his first examination of plaintiff in September 2012, more than two years after plaintiff’s MS diagnosis, and three years after the accident, he could not state within a reasonable degree of medical probability that plaintiff’s MS condition was any different from what it would have been had the accident not occurred.
Defendants also produced expert witness, Dr. James Charles, a neurologist, who disputed Dr. Yazgi’s causation opinion as “lacking science”. Dr. Charles cited an article from the American Academy of Neurology which concluded that there is no association between physical trauma, psychological stress, and the onset or exacerbation of MS.
The Jury deliberated for approximately one hour and five minutes before returning with the “no cause” verdict.
Kent/McBride’s Joshua Ferguson participates in snow contractor and landscape associations’ Legislative Days in Washington D.C.
Given his experience defending the snow contractor and the landscaper, Josh was asked to speak on behalf of Professional Landcare Network (“PLANET”) and the Accredited Snow Contractors Association (“ASCA”) to various committees, senators and congressman. Josh met with the Congressional Sub-Committee on the Constitution and Civil Justice, and also with the office of Pennsylvania Senator Patrick Toomey to advocate positive change for those industries.
On May 1, 2013, Marc A. Deitch, Esq., of Kent/McBride won a Motion for Summary Judgment based on the lack of agency between Kent/McBride's client, Karina & Kevin Transport (K&K), and co-defendant Jose Montoya. The parties argued the Motion in the Middlesex County Superior Court, Law Division, before the Honorable Frank M. Ciuffani, P.J.Ch.
Plaintiff Angela Garcia claims personal injuries from a September 12, 2008 accident, at which time her vehicle was struck from behind by the tractor/trailer operated, and allegedly owned, by Montoya. In addition to Montoya, plaintiff sued K&K, alleging that K&K continued to own the trailer attached to the cab, despite the execution of a Bill of Sale to Montoya in March 2008. Plaintiff and other parties claimed that the Bill of Sale was an installment contract, and title did not pass until Montoya had paid off all installments, which occurred AFTER this accident.
In support of the Motion, Kent/McBride contended that, regardless of ownership, plaintiffs and co-defendants failed to produce evidence to prove that a principle/agent or employee/employer relationship existed between Montoya and K&K, at the exact time of the September 12, 2008 accident. Kent/McBride cited the Third Circuit Federal case of Lebegern v. Forman, 339 F. Supp. 2d 613 (3d Cir. 2004), which confirmed New Jersey law on the issue of automobile agency and favorably ruled on factual issues on point with the subject matter. After two sets of submissions, Oppositions, and Oral Arguments, Judge Ciuffani granted Kent/McBride's Motion for Summary Judgment, and held that nothing in the record suggested that co-defendant Montoya was the agent, servant or employee of K&K at the time of the accident.
Bradley R. Lawrence, Esquire, of Kent/McBride's Iselin, New Jersey office obtained summary judgment for the Defendant at a plenary hearing before The Honorable E. David Millard, P.J.Cv., of the Ocean County Superior Court on May 1, 2013 in a case involving a motor vehicle accident allegedly causing serious injuries. The basis for the Motion was that the plaintiff had previously executed a release one year prior to resuming medical treatment for the amount of out-of-pocket medical bills incurred to that point.
Approximately one month after the accident, the Kent/McBride’s client’s automobile insurance carrier obtained a full and final Release from the Plaintiff in exchange for $1,300.00, an amount which represented the Plaintiff’s out-of-pocket expenses for hospital treatment and prescription medication at that time. Approximately one year after the accident, the Plaintiff resumed treatment, and filed the underlying action.
Kent/McBride’s Bradley R. Lawrence filed a motion for summary judgment shortly after receiving the Complaint on the grounds that the Plaintiff waived his right to bring the personal injury lawsuit as a result of executing the full and final Release and cashing the settlement check. In opposition, the Plaintiff argued that he did not read the Release, was not capable of reading the Release, did not understand the terms and effects of the Release, and believed Defendant’s insurer was merely paying for his hospital bill and prescription medication. The Honorable E. David Millard, P.J.Cv., denied the motion without prejudice as premature due to the lack of discovery deposition testimony.
After conducting the depositions of the parties and the claims representative from the Defendant’s insurer who obtained the Release, a plenary hearing was scheduled with Judge Millard to resolve the issue.
At the plenary hearing, Mr. Lawrence elicited testimony from the Plaintiff that indicated he was an educated, intelligent person. The Plaintiff testified that the Release was drafted in Spanish, his primary language, and that he read it when he received it. He also admitted to cashing the settlement check, but was adamant that the money received was to pay for his hospital bill and medicine. He testified he did not understand that he was waiving his right to sue by accepting the money and signing the Release. However, when presented with a copy of the Release at the hearing, the Plaintiff testified that he now understood that the document stated he was waiving his right to sue.
Testimony was also provided by the claims representative that negotiated the settlement and obtained the Release. The claims representative testified that she always spoke with the plaintiff on the phone utilizing a Spanish interpreter, the Release was drafted in Spanish so that the Plaintiff would understand its terms and effects, and that she explained the consequences of signing the Release and accepting the settlement check prior to sending it to the Plaintiff.
After hearing the testimony of the parties, Judge Millard determined that based on the totality of the circumstances, there was not sufficient evidence to justify avoidance of the Release. Accordingly, Judge Millard granted Kent/McBride’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed the Plaintiff’s Complaint against the Defendant, with prejudice, based on the valid, unambiguous Release, ending the claim with finality.
Josh Ferguson of Kent/McBride’s Philadelphia Office was the featured guest for the online radio programs of John Allin and “From Design 2 Build” in January and February of this year. Both programs are available for replay on http://www.blogtalkradio.com/johnallin.
Serving in his capacity as President of the Board of Directors, Brandon Gamble and his fellow Board members held a Grand Opening ceremony on January 24, 2013, for the Octorara Area Food Cupboard (OAFC) in Parkesburg, PA. The cupboard was made possible through the cooperative efforts of the Chester County Food Bank, The Point, Leadership Chester County (a program of United Way of Chester County) and generous donations from community leaders and businesses. Beginning in 2005 as a mobile food pantry which provided food once a month, the new permanent location of the OAFC at 714 W. Main St. in Parkesburg, PA will help to better serve area residents seeking food assistance. With almost 300 families receiving assistance each month when it opened its doors in December 2012, the OAFC has already reported 18 new families in December 2012 and over 20 new families in January 2013.
For additional information on the event, please visit Lancaster Online at the following link: http://lancasteronline.com/article/local/808453_Ceremony-celebrates-new-food-cupboard-in-Parkesburg.html, or contact Brandon at bgamble@kentmcbride.com.
On the morning of February 13, 2010, at approximately 7:15 a.m. plaintiff David Nevins slipped and fell on ice in the parking lot of his apartment complex and fractured his wrist. Kent/McBride’s client was the contractor that had a snow removal contract with the co-defendant property owner. Discovery established that the property manager for the co-defendant inspected the work completed by the contractor before permitting the contractor to leave the property the day prior to the accident when the contractor’s work was performed. Deposition testimony obtained during discovery also confirmed that not only was it was the obligation and duty of the co-defendant’s maintenance personnel to inspect the work completed by the snow removal contractor, but also to re-inspect the property after the contractor left the premises for any melt and re-freeze situations and to affirmatively call the contractor back to the property if a re-freeze situation arose.
Co-defendant argued that because the accident happened the morning after the contractor was last on site, a reasonable jury could infer that the contractor’s work was negligently performed. However, the property owner’s own weather expert confirmed that, due to a rise and then rapid drop in temperatures overnight on the 12th into the 13th, icy patches that may have developed would still have been present on the 13th if not treated. That, coupled with the codefendant property owner’s duty to call back Kent/McBride’s client to address melt and refreeze situations formed a solid basis for an argument contrary to the property owner’s position. The Court disagreed with the theory put forward by codefendant and granted summary judgment in favor of Kent/McBride’s client, the snow removal contractor.
Josh Ferguson of Kent/McBride’s Philadelphia Office was the featured speaker at New Jersey Landscape Contractors Association’s (NJLCA) meeting in Newark, New Jersey on December 15, 2012.
Given his experience defending the snow contractor and landscaper, along with serving as general counsel for various businesses, Josh’s discussion focused on risk management and education from a legal perspective. Josh has also worked with the national snow contractor’s organization (Accredited Snow Contractors Association) in preparing continuing education classes and proposed Tort Reform legislation for the snow industry. For more details about the above, please contact Josh at jferguson@kentmcbride.com.
Steve Purcell, of K/M's Cherry Hill, NJ office, obtained summary judgment on behalf of the firm's client, a South Jersey snow and ice removal contractor in Camden County. A resident of a codefendant's apartment complex had alleged that she had fallen after work at approximately 6:30pm on black ice that had allegedly accumulated in the parking lot of the complex. She claimed to have sustained a right shoulder partial thickness rotator cuff tear, requiring arthroscopic surgery, and also alleged alleged C4-5 radiculopathy, disc bulges at C5-6 and C6-7, bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome and low back pain with radiculopathy.
K/M's client had last been to the complex 9:30 a.m. on the morning of plaintiff’s accident. Discovery revealed that the property manager for the complex was responsible for monitoring conditions on the site after K/M's client had finished its work, and was also required to “call back” the contractor if black ice conditions developed. During the course of discovery, Attorney Purcell was able to obtain documentation confirming that the property manager inspected the property on the day of plaintiff's accident at approximately 1:45 p.m and completed a Winter Condition Report confirming the drive/parking lot was wet, but not icy. Discovery also confirmed that the property manager, also a defendant in the case, had five (5) full time maintenance “team” members for the location, two (2) of whom lived on site. All of these maintenance employees were responsible for monitoring conditions of the parking lot throughout the day after K/M's client left the property in the morning. Discovery further revealed that on the day of the accident, temperatures reached near freezing during the afternoon and there was significant sunshine, which resulted in snow melt. Thereafter, temperatures dropped again before sunset (5:24 p.m.), thus resulting in re-freeze of melted snow. The property manager's representative admitted at deposition that he would never have allowed J & J Lawncare to leave the property after his inspection if the work completed was not satisfactory as noted in his written report. Based on these facts, a motion for summary judgment was filed on behalf of K/M's client.
The Court rejected opposition to the motion for summary judgment, stating that a reasonable jury could not conclude that K/M's client negligently performed its work on the morning of the plaintiff's accident, thus, granting the motion.
Taryn Kindred of K/M's Philadelphia office was presented the Pro Bono Roll of Honor Award by the First Judicial District of Philadelphia. The judiciary recognized Ms. Kindred as an attorney whose pro bono work is exemplary. The recipients of the Pro Bono Roll of Honor for 2012 were honored by the First Judicial District at a reception in City Hall on October 24, 2012. The judiciary hosted the reception to recognize the importance of performing pro bono work in order to ensure justice for the citizens of Philadelphia. The First Judicial District also recognized the tremendous effort that many attorneys expend in providing pro bono services to litigants in the Court of Common Pleas or Municipal Court.
Ms. Kindred is a volunteer with the Support Center for Child Advocates. In that capacity, she is presently the designated child advocate attorney for a minor in Philadelphia. Ms. Kindred accepted her first pro bono case in May 2012 and she continues to represent her minor client.
Carolyn Purwin, an attorney in K/M’s Philadelphia office, has been published as a co-author in the Boston University School of Law, Journal of Science and Technology. Her article, entitled “Electronic Discovery: Rules for a Digital Age,” examines the differences between hard copy and electronic discovery and how electronic discovery has complicated the litigation process. It analyzes the issues that surround electronic discovery, including the preservation and production of electronic documents, whether production of metadata is required, ethical issues of metadata, the allocation of discovery costs, privilege, waiver of privilege, and spoliation. Further, this article reviews the history of electronic discovery, leading to the 2006 amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the 2008 amendment to Federal Rule of Evidence 502.
Josh Ferguson of K/M’s Philadelphia Office took part in a panel discussion on Risk Management for snow contractors at the Accredited Snow Contractors Association’s (ASCA) annual conference in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.
Given his experience defending the snow contractor, Josh’s discussion focused on risk management and education from a legal perspective. Josh has also worked with the ASCA in preparing continuing education classes and proposed Tort Reform legislation for the snow industry. For more details about the above, please contact Josh at jferguson@kentmcbride.com.
Steve Purcell of K/M’s Cherry Hill, NJ office recently won summary judgment on behalf of the firm’s client, a South Jersey snow and ice removal contractor. Plaintiff had undergone reconstructive knee surgery after her fall on ice taking place on December 23, 2009, at property owned by defendant The Hill House at Chanticleer Community Association. The accident occurred following a blizzard that took place on December 19-20, 2009, which dropped more than 20" inches of snow in the area. There were numerous melt/refreeze cycles on the days following the original storm.
Additionally, Plaintiff had secured a liability expert to opine that the roof drains of the Hill House properties discharge water directly onto the driveway where pedestrians could be anticipated to walk, in violation of industry standards, international standards, and a local Cherry Hill, NJ ordinance requiring property owners to maintain premise in safe conditions.
The Firm’s client, H & H Landscape Management, had entered into a snow removal contract with the property owner to perform snow and ice removal that season. H & H was not obligated to perform any additional snow/ice removal work once initial operations after a snow event were completed unless the owner made a specific request and authorized the work. Additionally, Attorney Purcell was able to establish through discovery that the owner’s representative had specifically declined any additional services by H & H prior to plaintiff’s accident on December 23, 2009 despite recommendations by H & H that additional salting be performed. The plaintiff’s liability expert had opined that if the owner had authorized H & H to perform the additional work, the accident would not have occurred.
On this basis, the Court granted K/M’s Motion for Summary Judgment stating that there was no liability. For further information, please contact Steve Purcell at (856) 382-3707 or Spurcell@kentmcbride.com.
Joshua Ferguson, Esquire, of K/M’s Philadelphia, PA office secured the dismissal of a claim against its client in a negligence and breach of contract action regarding the training and sale of horses. Plaintiff was seeking damages as a result of a career-ending injury to a winning thoroughbred, and also for the alleged unauthorized sale of six (6) of Plaintiff’s horses. All of the horses identified in the Complaint were stabled at one time or another at Defendant’s property for off-season training. The allegations in the Complaint were strongly disputed by K/M’s client.
In 2011-12, Brandon Gamble took and completed the 2012 class of Leadership Chester County, graduating in May 2012. Leadership Chester County is a partnership of United Way of Chester County, West Chester University and the Chester County Chamber of Business and Industry whose mission is to strengthen nonprofit organizations in Chester County by first educating skilled and concerned participants in the program and then matching them to positions on nonprofit Boards of Directors.
The organization takes a highly academic and comprehensive approach which educates volunteer leaders such as Brandon in 15 topic areas contained within the key training concepts of Community Specific Awareness, Nonprofit Governance and Leadership Skill/Professional Development.
As part of the rigorous eight month course of study, Brandon took a leadership role in the “nonprofit challenge” which tasked the group with developing a business model for the Chester County Food Bank analyzing the viability of a permanent food pantry in Parkesburg, Pennsylvania. Brandon, along with two other classmates, then presented the findings to the Board of Directors of the Chester County Food Bank during their April 2012 meeting. Since the time of that presentation and his graduation in May 2012, Brandon has further committed to sitting on the Advisory Board responsible for implementing the proposed model to make the Parkesburg food pantry a reality.
Congratulations to Brandon on completing the first step in participating in this highly worthwhile endeavor from everyone at K/M.
In a commercial case tried by K/M's Bill Markwardt, United States Bankruptcy Court Judge Kathryn Ferguson has rendered a written opinion entering a judgment of no cause for action in favor of K/M's client, a well-known standardbred- horse- training- facility- and horsebreeding-farm located in central New Jersey.
K/M's client had been sued, simultaneously, in both the New Jersey Superior Court and the United States Bankruptcy Court by one of its commercial tenants, a thoroughbred horsebreeder-and-trainer, for over $750,000.00 in damages on a multitude of claims including breach of lease, slander, discrimination, harassment, negligence, and for multiple claimed violations of the United States Bankruptcy Code.
Plaintiff's New Jersey State Court claims had been dismissed in advance of trial by way of dispositive motion.
Plaintiff's companion federal claims were tried to a conclusion and thereupon dismissed by Judge Kathryn Ferguson who determined that the plaintiff had not met its burden of proof on any of the claims brought to trial, and that the defendants had not committed any violation of federal law.
In a recent slip-and-fall case, James Meehan of Kent/McBride’s Wilmington office won a motion for summary judgment on behalf of a snow and ice removal subcontractor client. Plaintiff claimed to have slipped and fallen on an icy sidewalk outside her place of employment on January 21, 2009. During cross-examination at Plaintiff’s deposition, Mr. Meehan pressed the issue of what actually caused Plaintiff to fall. As a result, Plaintiff revealed that she did not see the ice on the sidewalk, but that the sidewalk was wet. She also stated that her boss later visited the site and stated that there was ice in the area described by the plaintiff. It was, thus, unclear whether Plaintiff ever actually saw any ice on the sidewalk.
The co-defendant property owner/manager filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that Plaintiff could not prove that there was an unreasonably dangerous or defective condition on the sidewalk which caused her to fall. It was further argued that Plaintiff could not prove that Defendants acted unreasonably by not discovering the condition and correcting it. In addition to pursuing summary judgment on those same grounds, K/M also argued that its client owed no duty to Plaintiff at the time of the alleged accident. The property owner contracted with the other co-defendant in the case, a snow and ice removal contractor, who also filed its own motion for summary judgment, to perform snow and ice removal services at the site. In turn, this contractor subcontracted the services of K/M’s client.
Pursuant to his contractual obligations and routine dealings with contractor, K/M’s client was only to perform snow/ice removal services at the site when specifically requested to do so by the principal contractor. While K/M’s client performed these services on the days leading up to the incident, there was no evidence that any such request was made on behalf of the contractor on the day of the alleged accident. It was upon this basis that the Court granted K/M’s Motion for Summary Judgment, finding that a reasonable jury could not determine that subcontractor could have been on notice of the arguably dangerous condition. While both of the other co-defendants’ motions were denied, the case was eventually settled amicably for an undisclosed amount.
For further information, please contact James Meehan at (302) 777-4577 or jmeehan@kentmcbride.com.
The Honorable Lourdes Santiago, J.S.C., of the Hudson County Superior Court, granted K/M’s Motion for Summary Judgment on April 27, 2012 in a pedestrian accident matter involving serious injuries for the plaintiff.
Plaintiff claimed that she sustained serious personal injuries as the result of an accident on October 29, 2010, in which she was a pedestrian struck in Bayonne, New Jersey by a “low blue vehicle” that fled the scene. Plaintiff could not describe the driver or identify the make, model or license plate number of the vehicle that struck her. She sustained a complex comminuted fracture of the distal tibia and fibular with multiple butterfly fracture fragments, lateral and posterior angulation and distraction with displacement with the tibia and fibular. Plaintiff underwent an open reduction internal fixation procedure to treat the multiple fractures. Her $15,000.00 PIP policy was exhausted.
The original Police Report referenced a statement by an otherwise anonymous “concerned citizen,” who allegedly witnessed the accident and identified the striking vehicle’s New Jersey license plate number as “ZPN53A”. That license plate corresponded to K/M’s client’s vehicle. However, through the discovery process, K/M was able to establish that, at the time of the plaintiff’s accident, their client and her boyfriend had the only sets of defendant’s car keys with them – in Las Vegas, Nevada. While they were still in Las Vegas, an investigating police officer spoke with the client by telephone and inspected her vehicle, which was left in the driveway of her home. This officer did not find any damage or other evidence to indicate that defendant’s vehicle had been in an accident.
K/M’s Marc A. Deitch filed the Motion for Summary Judgment on the grounds that the statement of the “concerned citizen” was inadmissible hearsay, the preclusion of which would eliminate the only purported fact that connected Danielle Sakowski to the plaintiff’s October 29, 2010 accident, and this litigation. Plaintiff’s counsel filed Opposition and argued that the statement of the “concerned citizen” fell within the “excited utterance” exception to the Hearsay Rule.
After Oral Arguments of counsel, Judge Santiago agreed with K/M’s argument that the statement of the “concerned citizen” did NOT constitute an “excited utterance”, and held that, by law, the statement of the “concerned citizen” was inadmissible and that Summary Judgment was appropriate.
For further information regarding this case, please contact Marc A. Deitch, Esq. at 732-781-1309 or MDeitch@KentMcBride.com.
The Philadelphia Support Center for Child Advocates (Child Advocates), an organization dedicated to providing pro bono legal and social service assistance to abused and neglected children in Philadelphia County, bestowed upon Anne Manero their Distinguished Advocates award at their 35th Anniversary Gala event on April 18, 2012. Anne has for many years provided countless hours of service to this organization. Through her pro bono legal work for the organization, Anne has positively and effectively impacted the lives of countless at-risk youth in Philadelphia. We join Child Advocates in recognizing and celebrating Anne’s devotion to this worthy cause. Way to go Anne!!!
The Honorable Barry P. Sarkisian, J.S.C., of the Hudson County Superior Court, granted K/M’s Motion for Summary Judgment on March 30, 2012, dismissing both the Plaintiff’s underlying Bodily Injury Claims and the Declaratory Judgment action filed by GEICO against K/ M’s clients.
Plaintiff Tanya Alvarado claimed severe and permanent personal injuries as the result of a multi-vehicle motor vehicle accident, including multilevel cervical herniations that resulted in multiple injections and a neurosurgeon’s recommendation for an anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. The accident occurred in the late morning of June 18, 2009, on the northbound lanes of Routes 1 & 9 (the Pulaski Skyway), in Jersey City, New Jersey. The parties’ versions of the multiple vehicle accident differed in significant ways.
Plaintiffs’ attorney sued the various operators, Allstate Insurance Company, plaintiff’s Uninsured Motorist carrier, because GEICO, the insurance carrier for one of the defendants denied coverage on the grounds that they had cancelled this defendant’s policy prior to the accident. GEICO subsequently filed the Declaratory Judgment Action against all parties who had an interest in the outcome of the coverage dispute with defendant Diazeusubio, i.e., all parties.
Through comprehensive and thorough discovery, including several depositions, K/M was able to establish that K/M’s client’s vehicle was completely stopped at the time of the various impacts, and did not cause any portion of this accident. Marc A. Deitch, Esq. of K/M filed the subject Motion for Summary Judgment, which was unopposed. The Court granted the Motion and dismissed all claims against K/M’s clients.
On the same date, Judge Sarkisian denied Motions for Summary Judgment by plaintiff GEICO (in the Declaratory Judgment Action) and defendant Allstate (in both cases). Plaintiff Alvarado shall now continue her case against the other drivers and plaintiff GEICO shall continue its Declaratory Judgment action against all parties except K/M’s clients. Both cases appear headed for Trial as to the remaining defendants.
For further information regarding this case, please contact Marc A. Deitch, Esq. at 732- 781-1309 or MDeitch@KentMcBride.com.
A Camden County (NJ) Superior Court Judge granted K/M’s Motion for Summary Judgment February 3, 2012 on behalf of a snow and ice removal contractor being sued as a result of a 2010 slip and fall. K/M’s Steve Purcell was representing the contractor in a case where plaintiff alleged that she slipped and fell on an allegedly icy condition on the sidewalk in front of her condominium unit on property owned and operated by Victoriana Condominium Association of Voorhees, Inc. Plaintiff alleged that she suffered serious and various injuries in the fall, including a fractured right foot, a torn right rotator cuff and bulging Thoracic and Lumbar disks in her back, with nerve root involvement. Plaintiff also alleged she would require right knee surgery as a result of injuries from the accident.
K/M’s client, Thorobred Landscaping Company, had a contract with Victoriana for snow removal work at the property. On behalf of Thorobred, Purcell argued the snow removal contract did not require defendant Thorobred to "reinspect" the property after snow removal work was completed following a particular snow event and that the contract specifically obligated the property owner to perform such inspections. Purcell also pointed out to the Court that the contract further provided that additional work by Thorobred subsequent to initial snow removal operations would only be permitted if the property owner called defendant Thorobred and specifically requested additional work at the site.
Invoices and the testimony of Thorobred’s representative confirmed that Thorobred worked at the site on February 10, 2010, following a 17 inch snowstorm. Thorobred was than on site again for the same storm on February 11th and February 12th of 2010. Thereafter, evidence showed that Thorobred was never called back, or requested to do any additional work at the site. In fact, Thorobred produced an e-mail from the property manager dated February 16, 2010, the day prior to Plaintiff’s fall, confirming that the property was in good condition, and the property owner did not want Thorobred to perform any additional calcium or salt applications.
Both plaintiff and Victoriana opposed K/M’s motion, arguing that a jury should be permitted to "infer" that the work performed by Thorobred prior to plaintiff’s slip and fall accident was negligently performed. The Court disagreed, and granted K/M’s motion, dismissing the firm’s client from the case, which will now proceed against the landowner only.
For further information regarding this case, please contact Steve Purcell at 856-382-3707 or Spurcell@kentmcbride.com.
Kent/McBride, P.C. is pleased to announce the opening of its Western Pennsylvania office. The office is located in Downtown Pittsburgh at 100 N. 5th Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA. While the firm has long handled matters for its clients in both State and Federal Courts as well as several Workers’ Compensation hearing venues in the Western portion of Pennsylvania, this office is the first staffed and permanent location for K/M in that region. From this location, the firm services clients with regard to all matters venued in Allegheny, Westmoreland, Washington and the other surrounding counties, the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania as well as Workers’ Compensation hearing venues in the Western portion of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania as well as Worker’s Compensation hearing venues in the Eastern region of the State of Ohio.
In a fall down personal injury case involving multiple surgeries and a younger female plaintiff with over $90,000.00 in unpaid medical bills, William Markwardt of Kent/McBride’s Cherry Hill, New jersey office obtained a summary judgment order on behalf of one of the firm’s insurance carrier clients, a snow removal contractor headquartered in Gloucester County, New ]ersey.
The plaintiff had fallen on co-defendant’s icy parking lot as she was exiting her vehicle to visit with her disabled son, a student enrolled at the co-defendant’s training facility. The co-defendant property owner had already escaped liability on charitable immunity grounds prior to when the co-defendant’s snow plow contractor, Kent/McBride’s client, was served with process and joined as a new party defendant.
The snow plow contractor likewise escaped liability by convincing the Court that although he had performed snow removal services at the subject site in the several week periods both pre-dating and post-dating plaintiffs falldown, he was not in fact called upon by the co-defendant nor was he otherwise required to perform such services in connection with a particular rogue snow storm that had started and finished within the 24 hour period immediately preceding the happening of the plaintiffs accident.
Jack Ribble, founder and director of Kent/McBride’s Workers Compensation Practice Group was an invited speaker at the Pa. State UAW CAP Council’s Annual Conference on October 20, 2011 at the Woodlands in Wilkes Barre. He presented the Employer’s perspective in a program exploring the challenges facing injured workers providing contrasting positions to those advanced by national representatives of organized labor, employee advocacy groups and the plaintiff’s bar. The session was lively and, at times, contentious but the trip into the lion’s den was helpful in learning where common ground exists and where misunderstandings arise.
Labor expressed concern over increased physical demands on their members due to economic pressures, mistrust of employer directed medical care, delays in the investigation and ultimate decision of disputed claims and a perceived lack of concern over the personal welfare of an injured employee as contrasted to the expense of the injury on the business. Mr. Ribble explained how system delays and inefficiencies are a shared concern, how all levels of an organization are asked to do a little more, within reason, to preserve the chance to continue, how we are always finding ways to provide better care in the face of continued attempt to avoid panel lists in favor of poorly qualified “Doctor Goodnotes” , extended periods where no treatment of any type was being pursued and how the first contact we often receive following a work injury, even before any decision is made to accept or further investigate the claim, is a letter from an attorney forbidding any contact with their client a/k/a our employee.
Most importantly employer’s frustrations were shared at the use of the Workers Compensation for reasons never intended including a “get even” for workplace disputes and as a supplemental retirement bonus for the general wear and tear of life. Lastly the group was reassured that employers share the pain of all legitimately injured employees but must be judicious in insuring that the benefit is preserved for the truly deserving as part of our overriding interest in protecting everyone’s jobs.
In August, the attorneys, administration and support staff at Kent/McBride’s center city Philadelphia office collected and donated school supplies to aid the United Way’s annual “Stuff the Bus” program. From crayons to backpacks, the supplies are provided to low-income and homeless children in the Southeastern Pennsylvania area to help start the new school year. This was Kent/McBride’s first year contributing to the program, and the fundraiser was organized by Francis Moritz, Esquire and law clerk Christina Belitz.
David C. Malatesta, Jr., Esquire and James J. Meehan, III, Esquire of Kent/McBride in our Wilmington, Delaware office were successful in defending an appeal to the Delaware Supreme Court on behalf of one of the firm’s insurance carrier clients. The appeal arose in a case where Mr. Malatesta obtained a defense verdict for the firm’s client in a six-day civil jury trial. The appeal was based on the Plaintiff’s contention that the jury instructions failed to properly distinguish between Plaintiff’s two theories of recovery, common law negligence and res ipsa loquitur. The Delaware Supreme Court found that the jury instructions correctly stated the law, were not confusing or misleading, and that Plaintiff’s contentions lacked both factual and legal merit. For further information, please contact Dave Malatesta at 302-357-3121 or dmalatesta@kentmcbride.com.
Christopher D. Devanny of Kent/McBride’s Iselin, NJ office successfully argued the defense’s motion for summary judgment in a wrongful death/personal injury lawsuit filed as a result of a motor vehicle accident. The matter was venued in the Essex New Jersey Superior Court. Bradley R. Lawrence, also of Kent/McBride’s Iselin, NJ office, authored the brief.
This case centered on an automobile accident that resulted in the death of one plaintiff and the critical injury of the other plaintiff. The accident took place on the shoulder of the Garden State Parkway, when the plaintiff, suspecting car trouble, moved too quickly from the left lane of the highway to the shoulder, where the defendant’s vehicle was already stopped with its hazard lights engaged. The plaintiff was unable to stop in time, and consequently struck the rear of the defendant’s vehicle, resulting in the aforementioned casualties.
Counsel for plaintiffs argued that the defendants were liable for the accident due to their violation of N.J.S.A. 19:9-1.6, which permits stopping in the shoulder lane only for several enumerated emergency purposes. Admittedly, defendants were stopped for a non-emergent reason. In an attempt to raise a question of fact which would have been within the exclusive province of a jury to decide, counsel for plaintiffs argued that “but for” the violation of the statute, defendants would not have been present in the shoulder, and the accident would not have occurred. Further, counsel argued that the violation of the statute was at least some evidence of negligence, also an issue to be decided by a jury.
In response, Mr. Devanny argued that the defendants’ violation of the statute had no bearing on causation and was not the proximate cause of the accident. Had defendants been stopped for an emergency purpose, as articulated by the statute, the accident still would have occurred. In furtherance of this argument, a number of cases were cited with analogous facts that established defendants’ conduct could not be considered to be the proximate cause of the accident. Finally, Mr. Devanny successfully argued that plaintiff/driver was completely responsible for the accident because he failed to make proper observations and reduce his speed before entering the shoulder. He also argued that, under the Dolson case, the plaintiff was obligated to keep a safe distance from the rear of the defendant’s vehicle, and his failure to do so was the proximate cause of the accident.
Shareholder Kevin Hoffman, who manages the firm's Iselin, New Jersey office, was a speaker at a recent Harris Martin New Jersey Asbestos Litigation Conference conducted at the Heldrich Hotel in New Brunswick, New Jersey on May 4, 2011. Mr. Hoffman participated in a segment of the conference focused on recent developments in New Jersey Asbestos Litigation, including significant decisions affecting the asbestos litigation. The panel looked at, among other things, significant recent verdicts from outside jurisdictions, recent filing trends in New Jersey, including the movement away from bulk filing of asbestotic claims to targeted malignancy claims; the increasing involvement of New York City and "national" asbestos plaintiff's firms in the filing of New Jersey asbestos claims; the sharing of resources between national plaintiffs' firms and New Jersey plaintiffs' firms; and the continued loss of defendants to bankruptcy, including several New Jersey/New York corporations who have faced decades of asbestos claims in the state.
Mr. Hoffman also addressed the New Jersey Supreme's Court's recent denial of certification in Anderson v. AJ Friedman Supply, et als., 416 N.J. Super. 46 (App.Div. 2010), cert.denied at, 205 N.J. 518 (2011). The Anderson case involved a mixed exposure claim brought by Bonnie Anderson, who alleged exposure through the laundering of her husband's work clothes for several decades as well as through direct exposure. Anderson's husband, John, was employed by Exxon at its Bayway Linden facility from 1969 until 2004. During his first twenty years at Exxon, John worked in job positions which brought him into contact with asbestos-containing materials. During this twenty year period, Bonnie Anderson routinely laundered her husband's work clothes, which were alleged to be contaminated with asbestos fibers from John's work at the Bayway facility. In 1975, Bonnie also became an employee of Exxon, working at the Bayway facility, although she worked in different areas and capacities than her husband.
Bonnie was later diagnosed with peritoneal mesothelioma in 2001. She brought suit against Exxon alleging premises liability, arguing that Exxon had sufficient knowledge at the time John started with Exxon in 1965 to take precautions against second hand exposures to those who would foreseeably come into contact with a plant worker's clothes and had a duty to warn persons subject to such foreseeable secondary exposures of the dangers associated with such exposure. Exxon argued that its duty as a premises owner did not extend to a spouse or anyone else allegedly exposed to harmful substances taken off the premises. Exxon also argued that Bonnie's direct employment with the company precluded a third party action against Exxon and that her claim was barred by New Jersey's worker's compensation laws.
During the pendency of the Anderson case, the New Jersey Supreme Court issued its decision in Olivo v. Exxon-Mobil, 186 N.J. 384 (2006) where the Court found that Exxon had a duty to warn the wife-spouse of an exposed plant worker of the dangers of secondary exposure to asbestos fibers brought home on the work clothing of her husband, which the wife routinely handled while doing the laundry. The Court held that similar to a duty a premises owner may owe workers on its premises to warn of dangerous conditions, the premises owner also owes a duty to the spouses of those workers "based on the foreseeable risk of exposure from asbestos borne home on contaminated clothing." The Court specifically limited its holding to the facts at issue in that case--that is, the duty of the premises owner was extended only to a worker's spouse.
Both the trial court and the Appellate Division considering the Anderson case found that Olivo clearly controlled the issue of whether Exxon owed a duty to Bonnie Anderson for exposure incurred from laundering her husband's work clothes. The Appellate Division also affirmed the trial court's determination that Exxon could hold a "dual persona", one as a premises owner owing a duty to Ms. Anderson via secondary,non-employment related exposures, and the other as an employer, who could invoke the worker's compensation bar for injuries suffered via exposures on the job. In this instance, the Court found that Anderson's exposure while laundering her husband's clothes was a substantial contributing factor to the onset of her peritoneal mesothelioma and, thus, her claim was not subject to New Jersey's worker's compensation bar. Anderson received a $7 million jury award after a second damages only trial and her husband was awarded $500,000 for his per quod claim.
At the Harris Martin conference, the panel discussed if, and to what extent, the holdings in Olivo and Anderson might be extended beyond sophisticated industrial premises owners on the defendant-side (e.g., commercial landowners), and beyond just the "spouse" of an exposed worker on the plaintiff-side (e.g., a child, a sibling, a car pool buddy, etc).
David C. Malatesta, Shareholder of K/M will be one of the presenters at the upcoming Harris Martin Delaware Asbestos Litigation Conference on March 10, 2011. Dave's topic will be Effective Discovery and Efficient Deposition Processes. The Conference is being held at the Hotel du Pont in Wilmington, DE. For further details, contact Dave at (302) 777-5477, and / or dmalatesta@kentmcbride.com.
Denis McBride of K/M's Cherry Hill, NJ office; successfully fended off an appeal by Plaintiff taken with the New Jersey, Superior Court, Appellate Division, in a premises liability case originating in Cumberland County, New Jersey after having prevailed on Summary Judgement at the trial level. In this case, the Plaintiff slipped and fell on cottage cheese which had been spilled in close proximity to the checkout aisle. Based upon video evidence, the spillage occurred approximately 33 seconds prior to the fall. Store employees were advised of the spillage and were in fact heading to the area when the incident occurred. On behalf of its client, Save-A-Lot, K/M filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that there was not significant enough evidence of constructive notice of the a dangerous condition and therefore no liability could attach to the Defendant. Plaintiff's counsel argued that the dangerous mode of operation charge should apply to the case thereby negating the need to prove notice. In addition, Plaintiff argued that the Defendant had actual notice of the hazardous condition and should have acted quicker to ameliorate the problem. K/M prevailed at the trial level, winning the Motion for Summary Judgement.
The Appellate Division, in a per curium decision, held that the reasons articulated by Judge Fisher at the trial court level were appropriate to support his finding of summary judgment in favor of Save-A-Lot. Even though store employees were advised of the spillage, it was appropriately held that 33 seconds was not sufficient notice to afford people reaction time to situations and that no jury could possibly find there was any negligence. The Appellate Division went on to quote from Defendant's brief in support of the motion for summary judgment in stating "It is not presumed that every injurious mishap that one encounters is necessarily attributable to the negligence of another. The actual pedestal stabilizing the logical inference of negligence must be established by some competent proof."
The Appellate Division also held that the motion judge correctly concluded that the matter did not involve a dangerous mode of operation under the seminal cases of Wollerman v. Grand Union, 47 N.J.426 (1996) and Nisivoccia v. Glass Gardens, 175 N.J. 559 (2003). In the case before the court, the plaintiff's fall did not occur in the produce section or checkout line as found to be relevant in Wollerman and Nisivoccia. While the area in the front of the store where the fall occurred could be broadly construed to be within the area of the checkout aisle as defined in Nisivoccia, an inference of negligence was not warranted. The plaintiff did not fall on loose produce, rather it was cottage cheese packaged by a manufacturer, in a sealed container. Thus, the dangerous condition caused by the cottage cheese spillage was not a foreseeable risk posed by the supermarket's mode of operation.
Assisting Denis McBride in the motion for summary judgment was associate Bernadette Dronson.
Jeffrey McDonnell of Kent/McBride's Philadelphia office recently obtained a defense verdict on behalf of a radiologist, an ER physician and a hospital in a wrongful death and survival action.
After having undergone an uneventful outpatient procedure to biopsy his liver, the decedent, a 73 year old male was taken to emergency department of the hospital because of persistent symptoms. He eventually developed unstable vital signs, confusion and diaphoresis. After having undergone CT scan testing, embolization, and successful surgery to evacuate an abdominal hematoma that had developed, the patient sustained multi-system failure and ultimately died thirty days later.
Plaintiff's theory at trial was that both the radiologist and the emergency room physician failed to recognize the patient's intra-abdominal bleed, which delayed the embolization. In fact, Plaintiff claimed that the ER physician saw the patient at 1:15 p.m at which time he was in shock, yet failed to treat him until 2:40 p.m. Further, plaintiff claimed that the embolization was unsuccessful and that surgery was indicated sooner. Damages were claimed for wrongful death and survival, including pain, suffering and loss of earnings.
The Defense position was that the patient did not have signs of intra-abdominal bleeding while in the radiology suite and that he quickly decompensated at 2:40 p.m. in the emergency department due to a delayed bleed from the biopsy. The Defense contended that the ER physician did not see the patient until 2:40 p.m at which point she appropriately administered care. Finally, the Defense demonstrated that the embolization was successful using the actual radiologic films from the procedure. After seven days of trial, the jury deliberated for one hour before returning a unanimous verdict in favor of all Defendants.
Assisting Jeff in the pretrial preparation, as has been the case in numerous successful prior matters, was Kent/McBride's nurse-paralegal, Marie Daly. For more information, contact Jeff at jmcdonnell@kentmcbride.com.
Jay Branderbit and Tim Dronson of K+M's Philadelphia, PA office recently presented a seminar on the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) to Johnson, Kendall & Johnson (JKJ) in Newtown, PA. The presentation dealt with various core concepts of the FMLA, including calculation of leave periods, what constitutes a serious health condition under the FMLA, employee responsibilities under the Act and job restoration issues related to equivalent positions. The presentation was attended by JKJ's Management, Benefits and Risk Management personnel.
William J. Markwardt of Kent/McBride's Cherry Hill, New Jersey office recently secured a dismissal with prejudice in favor of Pathmark in a New Jersey Superior Court, Bergen County, lawsuit case - managed by Presiding Civil Division Judge Brian R. Martinotti. The Bergen County lawsuit was brought under both New Jersey's Product Liability Act and New Jersey's medical-malpractice / wrongful death common law against various defendants who had manufactured, tested, prescribed, advertised or sold the pharmaceutical/medication commonly known as Digitek. A Pathmark pharmacy had regularly filled prescriptions and sold Digitek to plaintiff's decedent who took the medication for several years prior to his death in October, 2007. The Bergen County plaintiff ultimately and only recently opted to partake in a settlement agreement consummated in a related Federal Court class-action lawsuit venued in the Southern District of West Virginia, in a matter entitled In Re: Digitek Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 1968 The plaintiff was obligated to dismiss the Bergen County action against Pathmark, with prejudice, as a direct result and as a required condition of plaintiff's decision to partake in the Federal Court class action settlement agreement.
Kristen Sarnocinski of Kent/McBride's Cherry Hill Office obtained a defense verdict on 11.4.2010 in a bench trial in a property damage case in Atlantic County, NJ. After consideration of the testimony and evidence, the Judge found that Plaintiff failed to meet her burden of proof as to the value and condition of her vehicle at the time of the accident and temporary loss of use.
From 10.26.2010 – 10.29.2010 Ernie Koschineg of Kent/McBride’s Philadelphia, PA office was a featured lecturer at the Life Sciences Seminar presented by the Chubb Group of Insurance Companies. Over the course of the four day conference, Ernie presented to the national and international groups of Chubb underwriters on the topics of FDA Regulation and Medical and Drug Litigation. Ernie will also be presenting at the Chubb Life Sciences Claim Seminar at the end of November in a two day conference to commence on November 24, 2010.
Following a trial lasting four weeks in Middlesex County, NJ, Kevin E. Hoffman and David A. Semple of Kent/McBride’s Iselin office secured a defense verdict in a case filed pursuant to New Jersey’s Law Against Discrimination. Plaintiff alleged that K&M’s client had knowledge of his recent cancer diagnosis and fired him for that reason - an allegation the employer vehemently denied. Rather, the employer maintained that it did not know of plaintiff’s medical condition and terminated him due to unprofessional behavior directed toward a client, his refusal to acknowledge any wrongdoing, and subsequent insubordination.
At trial, plaintiff attempted to show that the employer had knowledge of his condition by calling several employees of the firm’s client, including the CEO, President, Vice-President, plaintiff’s direct supervisor and a coworker. During examination of these witnesses, plaintiff’s attorney showed a previously unproduced photograph of plaintiff, purportedly taken the very day of the altercation with the customer. According to the testimony of plaintiff’s family members, this photograph showed an obvious bandage on plaintiff’s neck, covering the incision area where his biopsy was performed. Although denied by each company witness, plaintiff argued that the employer must known he had a serious medical condition prior to his termination after its employees saw the bandage. However, the defense team was able to prove that the photograph was not taken when alleged by the family, but rather, was taken one year after plaintiff’s termination.
Plaintiff also argued that the employer’s reason for terminating him was unfounded, and therefore, must be a pretext for the “real” reason, being that he had cancer. In support of this position, plaintiff called as a witness the client who was involved in the altercation. During testimony, the employer’s client initially attempted to down play the incident with plaintiff. Nevertheless, under cross-examination by the defense, he ultimately acknowledged that plaintiff’s conduct toward him was not only highly unprofessional, but also would not be tolerated by his own company and would be against their code of conduct.
After closing arguments, the jury deliberated for one hour and fifteen minutes before returning a verdict that the employer had no knowledge plaintiff had a serious medical condition at the time of his termination, thus, dismissing plaintiff’s case.
Courtney E. Dowd was also a member of the defense team and was instrumental in conducting research, preparing pre-trial motions, and drafting jury charges.
Steve Purcell of Kent/McBride obtained a defense verdict for Pathmark in a recent Middlesex County (NJ) case. The jury found negligence on the part of Pathmark, but no "proximate cause" against the store where Plaintiff claimed she tripped and fell over a protruding piece of metal from a broken handicap sign in the defendant's parking lot. Based on the statements initially made by plaintiff to the store manager, police officer and initial ER nurse, Purcell was in a position where he had to admit the existence of the broken sign prior to the date of plaintiff's accident, but Steve was able to effectively present evidence that the broken sign was not the cause of the fall. The case was bifurcated, and the liability phase lasted five days, with plaintiff producing five witnesses, including a liability expert and a medical doctor concerning statements made by plaintiff after the accident. Plaintiff also produced three family members who testified to seeing blood in the area of the handicap sign on the day of the accident. K&M produced the store manager, responding police officer and initial ER nurse. Defense witnesses testified consistent with their reports that plaintiff initially made no mention of the broken sign being the cause of the fall, and it was this testimony that secured the victory for Pathmark. Based on the jury’s finding of no liability, the Plaintiff was not permitted to proceed to the damages phase of the case.
David A. Semple of Kent/McBride's Iselin, NJ office was recently successful in obtaining a defense verdict in a personal injury lawsuit filed as a result of a motor vehicle accident. At trial, plaintiff alleged that the accident occurred when Mr. Semple's client went through a stop sign, and struck his vehicle on the passenger side. Plaintiff maintained that he suffered multilevel spinal disc injury as a result of the accident. However, despite a liability finding against K&M’s client, Mr. Semple successfully convinced the jury not to award damages in the case. Specifically, Mr. Semple showed that medical records revealed inconsistent complaints by plaintiff, as well contradictory diagnoses by his treating physicians. Moreover, on cross-examination, Mr. Semple also had plaintiff's medical expert admit that the type of disc disease alleged could have been caused by such physical activities as martial arts, which plaintiff had previously been involved in on a competitive level. Semple’s defense medical expert also persuasively explained to the jury that his review of plaintiff's MRI films showed no signs of acute injury, but rather, degenerative/pre-existing conditions. After three days of trial, the jury deliberated for only 40 minutes, and found that plaintiff's alleged injuries were not compensable despite the fact that there was neither any limitation on suit for Plaintiff nor any burden on Plaintiff to prove a permanent injury. The matter was venued in Middlesex County, NJ.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.