Filter This View

  • Hilliard v. Panezich

    Publication Date: 2018-01-16
    Practice Area: Damages | Motor Vehicle Torts
    Industry:
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas
    Judge: Judge Cox
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 18-0012

    Defendant in motor vehicle accident case was not entitled to summary judgment on the issue of punitive damages where the evidence indicated he was driving under the influence of intoxicants, had a pattern of driving while intoxicated in the past, and was distracted by his cell phone.

  • Golab v. Knuth

    Publication Date: 2018-01-09
    Practice Area: Civil Procedure | Motor Vehicle Torts
    Industry:
    Court: Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Musmanno
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 17-1908

    Trial court properly terminated appellants case for lack of activity under rule 1901 even though there was no local rule implementing rule 1901 at the time because the lack of a local rule did not render the court powerless, the court complied with the minimum standards for notice set out in rule 1901(c) and the trial court was not required to hold an evidentiary hearing as to appellants reasons for her delay. Affirmed.

  • Coughlin v. Massaquoi

    Publication Date: 2017-10-17
    Practice Area: Evidence | Motor Vehicle Torts | Personal Injury
    Industry:
    Court: Supreme Court
    Judge: Justice Todd
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 17-1562

    Superior Court properly affirmed trial courts denial of appellants motion in limine to bar the evidence of pedestrians BAC, in automobile accident that killed pedestrian, because the BAC evidence was admissible if the trial court determined that it reasonably established a pedestrians unfitness to cross the street.

  • Safe Auto Ins. Co. v. Oriental-Guillermo

    Publication Date: 2017-10-10
    Practice Area: Insurance Law | Motor Vehicle Torts
    Industry: Insurance
    Court: Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Dubow
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 17-1440

    Trial court correctly found that insurer owed no duty to defend car driver because automobile insurance policy contained an unlisted resident driver exclusion and driver was policyholders live-in girlfriend, was not related to him.