PA Trial Practice Blog - Stay Up To Date On Pennsylvania State Court Matters

As predicted in my prior blog entitled, “The Restatement (Second) of Torts Continues To Apply In Pennsylvania”, on Tuesday the Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted a Petition for Allowance of Appeal in Tincher v. Omega Flex, Inc., 2013 WL 1222123 (Pa. March 26, 2013) to determine the issue of whether to replace the strict liability analysis of Section 402A of the Second Restatement of Torts with the analysis of the Third Restatement.  

If adopted, the Third Restatement will arguably make it more difficult for Plaintiffs in the products liability arena.  

My prediction is that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court will adopt the Third Restatement.  Stay tuned. 

            The Pennsylvania legislature tabled consideration of House Bill 23 which provided for major amendments to the Uniform Arbitration Act.

             HB 23 was sponsored by Representative Grell from Cumberland County and proposed both procedural and substantive amendments to the Uniform Arbitration Act. In summary the Bill proposed to: 

• Change the title of the Act from The Uniform Arbitration Act to the Statutory Arbitration Act;
• Rescind Chapter A – Uniform Arbitration Act;
• Add a new Subchapter A.1 which would be known as the Statutory Arbitration Act;
• Set forth the powers of the Court to determine if an agreement to arbitrate exists and whether a controversy is subject to the agreement;
• Set forth the powers of an arbitrator to determine if a condition precedent has been fulfilled and whether a valid agreement to arbitrate is enforceable;
• Set forth a duty of an arbitrator to disclose any personal, financial or pre-existing relationship;
• Establish immunity for arbitrators;
• Expand discovery;
• Permit an arbitrator to award punitive damages and attorney’s fees and costs.

             On February 12/2003, HB 23 was considered by the Judiciary Committee. On the same date, the bill was tabled without explanation. It is puzzling as to why there would be any opposition to the Bill. Many of the provisions, while new to the Act, are just a codification of the existing law. The Pennsylvania Bar Association favors the Bill. I will keep you posted on whether the Bill is again considered.

            On February 21, 2013, the Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed a lower court decision coordinating a Centre County Action with a Philadelphia County Action.

            As background, Penn State and its insurance carrier Pennsylvania Manufacturers’ Association Insurance Company (“PMA”) filed competing actions in Philadelphia (PMA) and in Centre County (Penn State) to determine if there is insurance coverage for claims filed against Penn State arising out of conduct of Jerry Sandusky.

             PMA filed a Motion in Philadelphia pursuant to Pa Rule of Civil Procedure 213.1 to coordinate the Centre County action with the Philadelphia County action with both cases being heard in Philadelphia.  Penn State did not contest coordination but argued that for convenience of the parties the cases should be coordinated in Centre County.

             Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas Judge Arnold New granted PMA’s Motion to coordinate and ordered the Centre County case to be transferred to Philadelphia. Penn State appealed to the Superior Court.

             On appeal the Superior court noted that there was no dispute that the cases should have been coordinated and that “the sole question is where the actions should be coordinated, based on the relative convenience, the risk of prejudice or delay, and the efficient utilization of judicial facilities.”

             Penn State’s sole argument for coordination of the cases in Centre County was based on the convenience of the parties.  The Superior Court  affirmed the lower court and in doing so opined that “the trial court’s primary task is not to balance the relative convenience of the parties, but to decide if the proposed coordination would provide a fair and efficient method of adjudicating the controversy.” The Superior Court found that Judge New did not abuse his discretion in finding that Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas was a “fair and efficient” forum to litigating the controversy.

            Unless Penn State seeks relief from the Pa Supreme Court the insurance dispute will be decided in Commerce Court in Philadelphia.

            The Pennsylvania Supreme Court is currently issuing orders approving the geographic boundaries for Magisterial Districts in Pennsylvania. By law the Supreme Court is required to set the boundaries every ten years. According to a February 14^th press release, due to the magnitude of the project, the Pa Supreme Court is issuing orders on a rolling basis. Initially the County Court Administrator proposes a plan and the plan then must be approved by the Pa Supreme Court.

             The Magistrates or Magisterial District Judges, in Pennsylvania, reside over civil actions of $12,000 or less, landlord tenant actions and also conduct Criminal arraignments and preliminary hearings.  The changes could have both political and practical implications. Politically, changes in boundaries could cause certain elected Judges to lose their seat or to now be in a district with changing demographics. Practically, businesses that were previously in one Magisterial District may now be in another. Thus, the relationships that businesses and community leaders have fostered for years may now be for naught.

             So stay tuned to the changes in case you need to avail yourself of the services of one of the Magisterial District Courts in Pennsylvania.

          Football players get their start in pee wee football or punt, pass and kick competitions.  The Pennsylvania Bar Association Young Lawyers Division gives that same opportunity to high school students, whose goal it is to be an attorney, through the PBA Mock Trial Competition.

           According to a PBA press release the Mock trial competition is in its 30^th year. Over 2500 students are participating in Pennsylvania this year. A successful competition also requires hundreds of Teacher, Attorneys and Judges to volunteer their time as coaches, Judges and jurors. Here is how it works:

• Students participate as Prosecutors, Defense Attorneys and Witnesses in a mock criminal trial;
• This years fact pattern involves a developer who is accused of being responsible for a crane collapse that killed 2 people;
• Competitions are currently taking place in 9 regions across Pennsylvania;
• At the conclusion of regional competitions, 12 high school mock trial teams will advance to the Pennsylvania Mock Trial Championships to be held on March 22^nd and 23^rd in Harrisburg PA;
• The winning team will then represent Pennsylvania in the National Mock Trial Championship in Indianapolis, Indiana to be held May 9^th through 11^th.

             I recently served as a juror and then a Judge for Region 9 which includes, Public, Private and Parochial schools in Montgomery County, PA.  I was amazed at the trial skills that were displayed by the high school students. At times, I needed to remind myself that these were high school students with no legal training.  Many were great advocates. They were skilled in their questioning of witnesses and gave opening and closing arguments without notes. I saw many future attorneys among the participants.

             Mock trial competitions are our legal professions training grounds. It is our pee wee football league or our punt, pass and kick competitions. In order for the competitions to continue it is a collaborative effort between the schools, attorneys and judges. Attorneys and Judges need to volunteer their time for the competitions to survive. It’s not too late. You can contact Maria Engles of the Pennsylvania Bar Association at 800-932-0311, extension 2223 to volunteer. In Region 9, Montgomery County contact Nancy Hagner at (610) 279-9660 x 208.

You will find that it is a worthwhile experience and it will also give you a glimpse into the future of our profession.