Newsroom

Andre Webb presents 2019 YLD Diversity Scholarship to Five Outstanding Law Students

On June 12, 2019, Mr. Webb in his capacity as Vice Chair of the Philadelphia Bar Association Young Lawyers Division (YLD), helped honor five outstanding law students and scholarship recipients at the 2019 YLD Diversity Reception.

Super Lawyers and Rising Stars 2019

GGM Announces 2019 Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

GGM is pleased to announce that Dean F. Murtagh, Gary R. Gremminger, John P. Shusted, Gary H. Hunter, Jeffrey D. Laudenbach, and Chilton G. Goebel, have been named Pennsylvania Super Lawyers for 2019.  Jacob C. Lehman has been named a “Rising Star” for 2019.

Jacob Lehman and Michael Dolan Publish Article in Legal Intelligencer

Mr. Lehman and Mr. Dolan’s article, Does registering to do Business in Pennsylvania mean Consent to General Personal Jurisdiction, explores the hot topic of whether Pennsylvania’s unique corporate registration statute can serve as an anchor for plaintiff’s seeking to sue in Pennsylvania on the basis of general personal jurisdiction

The full article can be reached here.

Defense Verdict in a Product Liability Case (Tractor Design)

On October 5, 2018, Dean Murtagh and Jacob Lehman obtained a defense verdict on behalf of their client, a manufacturer of agricultural equipment, after a three-week wrongful death jury trial in Monmouth County, New Jersey.

The trial centered on a May 2013 accident at an orchard in Freehold New Jersey where the Plaintiff’s Decedent was killed while operating an agricultural utility tractor (the “Tractor”) manufactured and sold by the Defendant in 1975. On the day of the accident, the Decedent, together with his co-worker, was using the Tractor and a chain to pull downed trees out of a field. The men improperly high-hitched the chain to the Tractor at a point above the rear axle; something that is warned against in the manual and in  decals on the machine. When the Decedent drove the tractor forward the log he was pulling became stuck and the Tractor flipped over front to rear landing on top of the Decedent and killing him.

At trial the Plaintiff contended the Tractor was defective for failing to incorporate a rollover protective system (ROPS) when manufactured and sold. Through Mr. Murtagh and Mr. Lehman, the Defendant maintained that this Tractor, which was a custom designed machine for low-profile orchard use, could not have a ROPS in 1975 because it destroyed the tractors utility under low fruit trees and actually made it more dangerous in the orchard. The Defendant also maintained that the cause of the accident was not the Tractor but instead the actions of the Plaintiff and his co-worker in improperly hitching the Tractor and the actions of the farm in failing to train its employees and failing to give them the right equipment for the job. The demand prior to trial was 3.8 million dollars. The jury returned a complete defense verdict.

Jeff Laudenbach Presents at ALFA International Workers’ Compensation Practice Group Seminar

Jeff Laudenbach recently spoke at the ALFA International Workers’ Compensation Practice Group Seminar on the panel: “A Wave (Of New Technology) in the Oasis”.

Click here to open the 2018 ALFA International – Workers’ Compensation Practice Group Seminar Program Brochure.

Chad Goebel obtained a Defense Award for a Primary Care Physician

Chad Goebel obtained a Defense Award for a primary care physician following binding hi/low arbitration where plaintiff alleged a failure to diagnose DVT leading to permanent injury.

Defense Verdict in a Products Liability Case

Dean Murtagh and Jacob Lehman obtained a defense verdict on behalf of their client, an international manufacturer of agricultural equipment, after a three-week jury trial in Philadelphia.

The trial centered on a 2015 accident where the plaintiff, a laborer, was injured when an agricultural utility tractor he was attempting to hotwire-start ran over and crushed his foot. The plaintiff underwent several surgeries and complained of an ongoing diagnosis of reflex sympathetic dystrophy/complex regional pain syndrome that would require amputation of his leg. He also suffered from a severe cervical myelopathy that he said was related to the accident. The plaintiff claimed the tractor was defective in its design because it did not incorporate a certain safety device present on smaller lawnmower type machines. Through Mr. Murtagh and Mr. Lehman’s presentation the manufacturer contended that the product was safe and useful; that the proposed “alternative design” did not make this machine safer and instead made it more dangerous and less useful in other applications; and, that the true cause of the accident was the alteration of the product pre-accident together with the plaintiff’s misuse. The demand prior to trial was 18.5 million dollars.

Jacob Lehman presents at ALFA EPLI Seminar

In June 2018, Jake gave a talk on litigation strategy at the ALFA Joint EPLI Group Seminar in Manhattan.

The presentation, entitled “Batting Down the Reptile 2.0, Tactics, Technology and the Next Generation in Professional Liability Defense”, focused on defeating advanced tactics from the plaintiff’s bar at deposition and trial  and incorporating some of those same tactics and technology to enhance the defense presentation.

A copy of the course materials can be accessed by clicking on this link:  Batting Down the Reptile 2.0:  Tactics, Technology, and the Next Generation in Professional Liability Defense.

Super Lawyers and Rising Stars 2018

GGM Announces 2018 Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

GGM is pleased to announce that Dean F. Murtagh, Gary R. Gremminger, John P. Shusted, Gary H. Hunter, and Jeffrey D. Laudenbach, have been named Pennsylvania Super Lawyers for 2017.  Jacob C. Lehman has been named a “Rising Star” for 2018.

Matthew McColgan’s Article on Punitive Damages in Motor Vehicle Accident

PUNITIVE DAMAGES IN MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT CASES SURVIVE SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN PENNSYLVANIA STATE AND FEDERAL COURTS

Matthew J. McColgan, Esquire
German, Gallagher & Murtagh, P.C.

In two recent cases, trial courts applying Pennsylvania substantive law have denied a defendant driver’s motion for summary judgment and allowed the plaintiffs to present their claims for punitive damages to the factfinder in cases involveding motor vehicle accidents.

One decision was handed down by the Honorable J. Craig Cox of the Lawrence Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas, Pennsylvania, captioned Hilliard v. Panezich, No. 1988 of 2015 (C.P. Lawrence Co. Dec. 1, 2017 Cox, J.). In Hilliard, defendant, Travis Panezich was at his residence where he had smoked marijuana once at noon on the day of the subject collision. At some point later that day, Panezich was operating a personal vehicle travelling at 55 mph on Stateline Road which had a posted speed limit of 45 mph. At the same time, Plaintiffs Chad and Courtney Hilliard were travelling on State Road 317 with their children. As Panezich approached the intersection of these two streets, he was changing music stations on a cellphone application in his hand and failed to yield to a stop sign governing his direction of travel.

Defendant collided into the Hilliard vehicle at approximately 8:05 p.m. A responding trooper evaluated Panezich and deemed him to be under the influence of a central nervous system depressant and cannabis to such a degree which impaired his ability to safely operate his vehicle, confirmed by a blood test. Panezich testified that he frequently smoked marijuana and would often smoke then drive.

The plaintiffs filed suit against Panezich, among others, making claims of negligence and seeking punitive damages. At the close of discovery, Panezich moved for summary judgment on the punitive damage claims. The Court denied the motion and found there was sufficient evidence to establish Panezich’s reckless indifference. Judge Cox explained that his decision did not rely solely on the distracted driving portion of the plaintiffs’ case, but also on Panezich’s intoxication, reciting that in certain circumstances, evidence of driving under the influence may constitute a sufficient ground allowing the imposition of punitive damages. “The additional indicia of recklessness”, Tthe Court held, “include the lab results indicating intoxication, defendant travelling 10 mph over the posted speed limit, and his failure to observe a posted stop sign. These facts, in conjunction, support the existence of recklessness.”

A second decision was issued by the Honorable James M. Munley of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, captioned  Delamarter v. Couglar and Cargo Transporters, Inc., No. 3:16-CV-665 (M.D. Pa. July 21, 2016Feb. 20, 2018, Munley, J.), which involved a commercial truck driver who allegedly fell asleep at the wheel. On May 2, 2014, at some point just before 5:30 a.m., defendant Couglar was operating a tractor trailer in a one-lane portion of interstate 84 in Pike County, PA while working for Cargo Transporters, Inc. Plaintiff, Eugene Delamarter was operating a pickup truck and was stopped in traffic due to an accident further down the road. Couglar, coming from behind Plaintiff’s stopped vehicle, did not stop his tractor trailer, and rear-ended the plaintiff. Plaintiffs contended that Couglar fell asleep behind the wheel, being the reason he could not bring his tractor trailer safely to a stop. Defendants disputed the notion that Couglar had fallen asleep.

Plaintiffs filed suit against Couglar and his employer, Cargo Transporters, Inc., bringing claims of negligence against both defendants directly, the employer vicariously, and seeking punitive damages against both defendants directly. Defendants moved for summary judgment on the punitive damage claims arguing, inter alia, that punitive damages were not appropriate even if Couglar did fall asleep. The Court denied the motion with respect to the punitive damage claims against the driver directly and the employer vicariously, but granted the motion and dismissed the plaintiffs’ direct claims for punitive damages against the employer.

In finding that whether Couglar’s conduct could be found reckless was a question properly reserved for the jury, the Court recited the  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania’s explanation in Bernosky v. Greff,[1] stating that a driver is chargeable with knowledge that an individual in a state of exhaustion is likely to fall asleep. With this backdrop, the Court acknowledged the evidence of record, and referred to a statement in which Couglar’s passenger believed Couglar fell asleep and Couglar himself related he fell asleep or “zoned out”. The Court pointed out that during depositions, the passenger denied ever saying this and Couglar had no memory of the accident. Finally, video footage from within the tractor cab seemed to show Couglar asleep at some point before the accident, though the Court realized the footage was not conclusive.

Therefore, the court determined that the evidence and circumstances of record established that a jury could conclude Couglar knew he was sleepy and continued to drive, ignored the risks of falling asleep and of a large tractor trailer striking much smaller and vulnerable vehicles, and made a conscious decision to ignore the grave danger posed to other motorists and their passengers, such that a jury could reasonably find Couglar acted with reckless indifference. The Court also considered the evidence that Couglar understood his alleged actions violated the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations.

The Court, however, granted the defendants’ Motion with respect to the plaintiffs’ claims that the employer should be held directly liable for punitive damages. The Court found no evidence that the employer did anything to warrant punitive damages, and held that the mere fact that a citation was issued after the accident does not make it more likely that the company knew the driver was driving while fatigued on the date of the accident. Accordingly, where there was no evidence that the employer had a subjective belief that the driver would operate the truck while fatigued, the company could be not held directly liable for punitive damages.

The Courts appear to have ruled these instances do present more than ordinary claims of negligence. Both Hilliard and Delamarter, in two different contexts, in illustrate how a Court will rely on a multitude of facts adduced to determine whether the evidence is sufficient to allow the punitive damage issue to be presented to the jury.