CLOSE X
RSS Feed LinkedIn Instagram Twitter Facebook
Search:
FMG Law Blog Line

Posts Tagged ‘Pennsylvania Superior Court’

Undefeated Records: Good for Sports & Business

Posted on: November 1st, 2019

By: Brittany Kurtz

A contentious rivalry between divisional foes late in the season fueled a halftime bathroom brawl in December 2014 leading a Dallas Cowboys fan to file negligence claims against the Philadelphia Eagles organization and its security manager at Lincoln Financial Field. The Cowboys fan alleged a group of Eagles fans repeatedly taunted him, going so far as to grab his star-emblazoned hat and tossing it into a urinal, ultimately ending in an altercation with the Cowboys fan on the ground and surrounded by a handful of attackers. These attackers were never found, but the Cowboys fan alleged his injuries were caused by the Eagles organization and its security manager for failing to provide reasonable security within the bathroom.

Most surprising was the Cowboys fan’s favorable jury verdict in a Philadelphia courtroom. The Philadelphia Eagles organization appealed to the Superior Court as it believed the Cowboys fan failed to meet his burden of proving a duty owed by the organization regarding the security measures in place and was entitled to Judgement N.O.V.

The Superior Court acknowledged the Philadelphia Eagles organization held its property open to the public for business purposes and would be subject to liability for negligent or intentional harmful acts of third persons which it must take reasonable precaution against that which might be reasonably anticipated. Generally, individuals are not liable for the criminal conduct of another absent a preexisting duty. However, the Eagles organization voluntarily undertook a duty to protect its business invitees, including Cowboys fans, from fighting during football games at Lincoln Financial Field. Therefore, the Eagles organization had a duty to protect its invitees against third party conduct when it had reason to anticipate such conduct.

The Superior Court determined the Eagles organization and its security management team as a matter of law did not have notice of violent assaults regularly occurring in its restrooms during games, therefore it was reasonable to not have a stationed security guard at the restrooms. The security logs only demonstrated the Eagles organization was on notice that there were persons who became incapacitated because of intoxication in the restrooms, not violence.

The Cowboys fan also alleged negligent operation of the security program in place as it is known that wearing opposing team apparel to an Eagles’ game is dangerous. However, the security team employs undercover guards wearing the opposing team’s gear in order to identify those members of the convocation of Eagles who harass fans of the opposing team to be addressed. Therefore, the Court determined the Cowboys fan failed to demonstrate the security program was conducted without reasonable care and that the Eagles organization should have reasonably anticipated violent assaults occur in the restrooms and should have been monitored by security. The Court vacated the judgment entered in favor of the Cowboys fan and remanded to the trial court for entry of judgment in favor Philadelphia Eagles organization and its security management team. Pearson v. Phila. Eagles, LLC, 2019 PA Super. 304 (October 11, 2019).

Record keeping played a critical role as the Superior Court relied heavily upon the security logs and documentation of the security team to determine whether the Philadelphia Eagles organization had notice of prior instances of violence occurring in its restrooms during games. Documentation provides objective evidence to the courts and juries which helps to provide them a clearer picture and, in this case, clearly showing a property owner’s lack of notice for third party violence towards its invitees in the restrooms.

If you have any questions or would like more information, please contact Brittany Kurtz at [email protected]

Pennsylvania Superior Court Maintains a Contempt/Sanctions Proceeding is a ‘Civil Proceeding’ Contemplated by the Dragonetti Act

Posted on: July 29th, 2019

By: Courtney Mazzio

In Pennsylvania, the Dragonetti Act created a wrongful use of civil proceedings cause of action, when a person who takes part in the procurement, initiation or continuation of civil proceedings against another is subject to liability to the other for wrongful use of civil proceedings if: (1) he acts in a grossly negligent manner or without probable cause and primarily for a purpose other than that of securing the proper discovery, joinder of parties or adjudication of the claim in which the proceedings are based; and (2) the proceedings have terminated in favor of the person against whom they are brought. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 8351(a). Attorneys may be found liable under this cause of action.

Raynor v. D’Annunzio is a Dragonetti action brought by Plaintiff/appellant attorney,  stemming from contempt proceedings where sanctions were sought against her in an underlying civil suit. Raynor v. D’Annunzio, 2019 PA Super 72, 205 A.3d 1252. In the underlying action, a Philadelphia County Judge ultimately issued over $900,000 in sanctions against counsel for attempting to elicit certain testimony from her expert that was off-limits per a pre-trial in limine ruling. Plaintiff/appellant then appealed ruling to the Superior Court. There was a question over whether counsel had (1) intentionally violated the in limine ruling with her line of questioning of the expert, particularly where there was no  order instructing counsel to instruct her witness not to mention Plaintiff’s smoking history existed; and (2) whether there was evidence of record proving that counsel colluded with the expert in order to actively ignore the in limine ruling during questioning. On these bases, the Superior Court reversed the sanction orders of the trial court.

Plaintiff/appellant then brought this separate Dragonetti action against Plaintiff’s counsel in the underlying action, claiming counsel knew their requests for sanctions and contempt were unsupported by the facts and law, yet they pursued the action anyway in an effort to ruin counsel’s livelihood and professional life. Appellee filed Preliminary Objections, which resulted in the rare dismissal of a case with prejudice, in part on the basis that the phrase found in the Pennsylvania cause of action  “procurement, initiation, or continuation of civil proceedings” means the filing of a civil action, and does not include the filing of a post-trial motion. See id. at 1260. Plaintiff/appellant once again appealed the decision of the trial court. The Pennsylvania Superior Court found that a motion seeking a finding of contempt and a request for sanctions is, separate and distinct from post-trial motions alleging trial court error filed in the underlying lawsuit for the purposes of the Dragonetti Act. See id. at 1261-62. They determined it is essentially the same as the filing of a civil lawsuit. See id. Put another way, the Court found that seeking an adjudication of contempt and requesting sanctions constituted the procurement, initiation, or continuation of civil proceedings as contemplated by the Dragonetti Act. See id.  On this basis, the Court reversed the decision of the trial court sustaining the Preliminary Objections and remanded it to the trial court. It remains to be seen how the trial court will ultimately rule in this longstanding dispute riddled with contention.

If you have questions or would like more information, please contact Courtney Mazzio at [email protected].