philadelphia lawyer - tort law update
Post on 16-Jul-2015
Embed Size (px)
PBI-Tort Law Update August 16, 2007Miscellaneous Tort IssuesPhiladelphia Lawyer : Joel D. Feldman, Esq.Anapol, Schwartz, Weiss, Cohan, Feldman & Smalley, P.C.1900 Delancey PlacePhiladelphia, PA 19103(215) email@example.com
Campizi v. Acme Markets (Pa. Super. 2006)
Blind Acme employee's caneRounding corner of parallel aisles Duty to warn invitees of risk posed by disabled employee with cane
Restatement (Second) of Torts 343A
Known and Obvious DangersPlaintiff's Duty v. Defendant's DutyControl of Employee?
Campbell v. Etiak (Pa. Super. 2006)
Chicken teriyaki lodged in throatNo restaurant employee trained in Heimlich maneuverWhat duty of care owed?
Venue-PA R.C.P 2179 Actions against corporations or similar entitiesCounty of registered office or principal place of businessWhere cause of action aroseWhere it regularly conducts business
Regularly Conducts Business
Quality and quantity test-Purcell v. Bryn Mawr Hospital
QualityActs essential or in furtherance of business objectivesNot incidental acts, ic advertising, hiring, training
regularly not principallyHow much of corporations business is sufficient
Zampana-BarryLegal malpractice case filed against Delaware County law firm in Philadelphia CountyFailure to protect case against defendant who filed for bankruptcy
QualityLaw firm admitted it represented clients in Philadelphia CountyLaw firms essential purpose is to represent clients
Quantity3-5% of legal servicesWhat % is enough?Canter v. American Honda-1 to 2%
Judge Klein-concurredTrial court did not abuse its discretionNo clear standard and inconsistent decisions
Masel v. Glassman- 3% revenue not sufficientBattuello v. Camelback-5% customers not sufficientCanter v. American Honda-1 to 2% is sufficient
Hybrid quality-quantity analysis?Does defendants percentage connection result from defendant coming into Philadelphia to act-Zampana & Canter or from Philadelphians going to the defendants County-Masel & Battuello
Removal-What are Plaintiff Attorneys doing?
Original Federal Court JurisdictionFederal questiondiversity
28 U.S.C. 1441(b)
Removal based on diversity of citizenship
What does 1441(b) provide?In non-federal question cases, removal only if: none of ..defendants is a citizen of the State of which suit action is brought.
Plaintiff N.J. CitizenDefendant PA CitizenSue in Philadelphia County