Jump to Navigation

Legal Headlines

Case Summaries

Injury & Tort Law

[02/09] Delgado v. Pawtucket Police Dep't
In a state law tort action over which the federal district court retained supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing the plaintiffs' federal claims, the district court's grant of a defense motion for judgment as a matter of law is affirmed, where: 1) the district court appropriately exercised its discretion to retain jurisdiction over the case; 2) the district court was correct to reject the plaintiffs' construction of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 32(a)(4)(C) and to refuse to admit a witness's deposition where it had found that he was available for live testimony; 3) there was no abuse of discretion in the district court's decision to deny the plaintiffs' mid-trial request for a continuance so they could procure the witness's live testimony through a writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum; and 4) there was no error in the allowance of the defendants' motion for judgment as a matter of law, absent sufficient evidence on the issue of breach of duty.

[02/08] Howard v. Omni Hotels Management Corp.
In a personal injury action after the plaintiff slipped in a bathtub at a hotel: 1) the district court's grant of summary judgment to the bathtub manufacturer is affirmed, where the evidence produced by the plaintiff, both expert and lay opinion, was insufficient to establish any triable issues of fact on his claims of negligence and product liability; and 2) the district court's grant of the plaintiff's motion for a new trial on his allegations against the hotel is reversed, where the undisputed facts supported only one legal conclusion, that the plaintiff would not be able to prevail on his premises liability or negligence theories, because he could not demonstrate the hotel was placed on sufficient actual or constructive notice of any dangerous condition of the bathtub.

[02/07] Getchell v. Rogers Jewelry
In a slip-and-fall action, summary judgment in the defendant's favor is reversed, where the plaintiff produced evidence from which a reasonable inference could be drawn that the dangerous condition was created by the negligence of the defendant or its employees, so that the defendant could be charged with notice of the dangerous condition.

[02/03] Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty Insurance Co. v. Roberts
In a suit brought by an insurer seeking a declaratory judgment that it was required to indemnify its insured for no more than 40 percent of a state court judgment because it had covered its insured for no more than 40 percent of the time in which the state court plaintiff was exposed to lead poisoning, the district court's judgment is: 1) affirmed in part, where it was correct in allocating the insurer's liability using the pro-rata time on-the-risk, and its decision to use the plaintiff's date of birth as the starting point for the period in which she was exposed to lead poisoning was sound; and 2) reversed in part, where the district court erred in holding the insurer liable for 24 months of coverage rather than 22, since under the insurance contract, coverage ended when the property was sold.

Read More

Workers' Comp

[01/11] Pacific Operators Offshore, LLP v. Valladolid
In an appeal from a judgment of the appeals court vacating an administrative dismissal of respondent's Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA) claim for benefits as a surviving spouse, judgment is affirmed where a claimant seeking benefits under the OCSLA must establish a substantial nexus between the injury and extractive operations on the shelf.

[12/13] In the Matter of Elrac, Inc. v. Exum
In an appeal from a judgment of the appellate division permitting arbitration of a claim by plaintiff-employee for uninsured motorist benefits, judgment is affirmed because a self-insured employer whose employee is involved in an automobile accident may be liable to that employee for uninsured motorist benefits, notwithstanding the exclusivity provision of the Workers' Compensation Law.

[10/31] County of Kern v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd
In an appeal from a judgment of the trial court affirming an administrative decision in a claim for worker's compensation, judgment is affirmed where a volunteer firefighter with a local nonprofit firefighting organization was a county employee for purposes of workers' compensation coverage under Labor Code section 3361.1.

[09/13] Motheral v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board
In a petition for review of a judgment of the defendant-Board denying reconsideration of an administrative decision calculating petitioner's disability benefits based solely on his full-time employment at minimum wage, Lab. Code section 4653, judgment is reversed where section 4454 mandates the inclusion of the market value of petitioner's living quarters, utilities, and car allowance.

Read More

Associated Press text, photo, graphic, audio and/or video material shall not be published, broadcast, rewritten for broadcast or publication or redistributed directly or indirectly in any medium. Neither these AP materials nor any portion thereof may be stored in a computer except for personal and non-commercial use. Users may not download or reproduce a substantial portion of the AP material found on this web site. AP will not be held liable for any delays, inaccuracies, errors or omissions therefrom or in the transmission or delivery of all or any part thereof or for any damages arising from any of the foregoing.

Practice Areas
Office Location

McMillen Urick Tocci Fouse and Jones

2131 Brodhead Road
Aliquippa, PA 15001
Phone: 724-375-6683
724-378-1380
Fax: 724-375-5099

Map & Directions
A Personal Injury Law Firm | McMillen Urick Tocci Fouse and Jones