philadelphia lawyer - tort law update

Download Philadelphia Lawyer - Tort Law Update

Post on 16-Jul-2015

1.396 views

Category:

Business

3 download

Embed Size (px)

TRANSCRIPT

  • 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) 735-3716jfeldman@anapolschwartz.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

  • Quantity

    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

Recommended

View more >