PBI-Tort Law Update August 16, 2007
MiscellaneousMiscellaneous TortTort IssuesIssues
Philadelphia Lawyer Philadelphia Lawyer : Joel D. Feldman, Esq.: Joel D. Feldman, Esq.
Anapol, Schwartz, Weiss, Cohan, Anapol, Schwartz, Weiss, Cohan,
Feldman & Smalley, P.C.Feldman & Smalley, P.C.
1900 Delancey Place1900 Delancey Place
Philadelphia, PA 19103Philadelphia, PA 19103
(215) 735-3716(215) 735-3716
jfeldman@[email protected]
Campizi v. Acme Markets (Pa. Super. 2006)
Blind Acme employee's caneBlind Acme employee's cane
Rounding corner of parallel aisles Rounding corner of parallel aisles
Duty to warn invitees of risk posed Duty to warn invitees of risk posed by disabled employee with caneby disabled employee with cane
Restatement (Second) of Torts §343A
Known and Obvious Dangers Known and Obvious Dangers
Plaintiff's Duty v. Defendant's Duty Plaintiff's Duty v. Defendant's Duty
Control of Employee?Control of Employee?
Campbell v. Etiak (Pa. Super. 2006)
Chicken teriyaki lodged in throat Chicken teriyaki lodged in throat
No restaurant employee trained in No restaurant employee trained in Heimlich maneuverHeimlich maneuver
What duty of care owed?What duty of care owed?
Venue-PA R.C.P §2179
Actions against corporations or Actions against corporations or similar entitiessimilar entities
County of registered office or County of registered office or principal place of businessprincipal place of business
Where cause of action aroseWhere cause of action arose
Where it regularly conducts businessWhere it regularly conducts business
Regularly Conducts Business
Quality and quantity test-Quality and quantity test-PurcellPurcell v. v. BrynBryn MawrMawr HospitalHospital
Quality
Acts essential or in furtherance of Acts essential or in furtherance of business objectivesbusiness objectives
Not incidental acts, ic advertising, Not incidental acts, ic advertising, hiring, traininghiring, training
Quantity
regularly not principally”regularly not principally”
How much of corporations business How much of corporations business is sufficientis sufficient
Zampana-Barry
Legal malpractice Legal malpractice case filed against case filed against Delaware County law firm in Delaware County law firm in Philadelphia CountyPhiladelphia County
Failure to protect case against Failure to protect case against defendant who filed for bankruptcydefendant who filed for bankruptcy
Quality
Law firm admitted it represented Law firm admitted it represented clients in clients in Philadelphia CountyPhiladelphia County
Law firm’s essential purpose is to Law firm’s essential purpose is to represent clientsrepresent clients
Quantity
3-5% of legal services3-5% of legal services
What % is enough?What % is enough?
Canter v. American Honda-1 to 2%Canter v. American Honda-1 to 2%
Judge Klein-concurred
Trial court did not abuse its Trial court did not abuse its discretiondiscretion
No clear standard and inconsistent No clear standard and inconsistent decisionsdecisions
Masel Masel v.v. Glassman Glassman- 3% revenue not - 3% revenue not sufficientsufficient
BattuelloBattuello v. v. CamelbackCamelback-5% -5% customers not sufficientcustomers not sufficient
CanterCanter v. v. AmericanAmerican HondaHonda-1 to 2% is -1 to 2% is sufficientsufficient
Hybrid “quality-quantity” analysis? Does defendants “percentage Does defendants “percentage
connection” result from defendant connection” result from defendant coming into Philadelphia to act-coming into Philadelphia to act-ZampanaZampana & & CanterCanter
oror
from Philadelphians going to the from Philadelphians going to the defendants County-defendants County-MaselMasel & & BattuelloBattuello
Removal-What are Plaintiff Attorney’s doing?
Original Original Federal Court JurisdictionFederal Court Jurisdiction
Federal questionFederal question
diversitydiversity
28 U.S.C. §1441(b)
Removal based on diversity of Removal based on diversity of citizenshipcitizenship
What does §1441(b) provide? In non-federal question cases, In non-federal question cases,
removal only if:removal only if:
“ “none of ..defendants is a citizennone of ..defendants is a citizen
of the State of which suit action of the State of which suit action is brought.” is brought.”