PBI-Tort Law Update August 16, 2007 Miscellaneous Tort Issues Philadelphia Lawyer : Joel D. Feldman, Esq. Anapol, Schwartz, Weiss, Cohan, Feldman & Smalley, P.C. 1900 Delancey Place Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 735-3716 jfeldman@ anapolschwartz .com

Campizi v. Acme Markets (Pa. Super. 2006) Blind Acme employee's cane Rounding corner of parallel aisles Duty to warn invitees of risk posed by disabled employee with cane

Blind Acme employee's cane

Rounding corner of parallel aisles

Duty to warn invitees of risk posed by disabled employee with cane

Restatement (Second) of Torts §343A Known and Obvious Dangers Plaintiff's Duty v. Defendant's Duty Control of Employee?

Known and Obvious Dangers

Plaintiff's Duty v. Defendant's Duty

Control of Employee?

Campbell v. Etiak (Pa. Super. 2006) Chicken teriyaki lodged in throat No restaurant employee trained in Heimlich maneuver What duty of care owed?

Chicken teriyaki lodged in throat

No restaurant employee trained in Heimlich maneuver

What duty of care owed?

Venue-PA R.C.P §2179 Actions against corporations or similar entities County of registered office or principal place of business Where cause of action arose Where it regularly conducts business

Actions against corporations or similar entities

County of registered office or principal place of business

Where cause of action arose

Where it regularly conducts business

Regularly Conducts Business Quality and quantity test- Purcell v. Bryn Mawr Hospital

Quality and quantity test- Purcell v. Bryn Mawr Hospital

Quality Acts essential or in furtherance of business objectives Not incidental acts, ic advertising, hiring, training

Acts essential or in furtherance of business objectives

Not incidental acts, ic advertising, hiring, training

Quantity regularly not principally” How much of corporations business is sufficient

regularly not principally”

How much of corporations business is sufficient

Zampana - Barry Legal malpractice case filed against Delaware County law firm in Philadelphia County Failure to protect case against defendant who filed for bankruptcy

Legal malpractice case filed against Delaware County law firm in Philadelphia County

Failure to protect case against defendant who filed for bankruptcy

Quality Law firm admitted it represented clients in Philadelphia County Law firm’s essential purpose is to represent clients

Law firm admitted it represented clients in Philadelphia County

Law firm’s essential purpose is to represent clients

Quantity 3-5% of legal services What % is enough? Canter v. American Honda-1 to 2%

3-5% of legal services

What % is enough?

Canter v. American Honda-1 to 2%

Judge Klein - concurred Trial court did not abuse its discretion No clear standard and inconsistent decisions

Trial court did not abuse its discretion

No clear standard and inconsistent decisions

Masel v. Glassman - 3% revenue not sufficient Battuello v. Camelback -5% customers not sufficient Canter v. American Honda -1 to 2% is sufficient

Masel v. Glassman - 3% revenue not sufficient

Battuello v. Camelback -5% customers not sufficient

Canter v. American Honda -1 to 2% is sufficient

Hybrid “quality-quantity” analysis? Does defendants “percentage connection” result from defendant coming into Philadelphia to act- Zampana & Canter or from Philadelphians going to the defendants County- Masel & Battuello

Does defendants “percentage connection” result from defendant coming into Philadelphia to act- Zampana & Canter

or

from Philadelphians going to the defendants County- Masel & Battuello

Removal - What are Plaintiff Attorney’s doing ? Original Federal Court Jurisdiction Federal question diversity

Original Federal Court Jurisdiction

Federal question

diversity

28 U.S.C. §1441(b) Removal based on diversity of citizenship

Removal based on diversity of citizenship

What does § 1441(b) provide? In non-federal question cases, removal only if: “ none of ..defendants is a citizen of the State of which suit action is brought.”

In non-federal question cases, removal only if:

“ none of ..defendants is a citizen

of the State of which suit action is brought.”

Plaintiff N.J. Citizen Defendant PA Citizen Sue in Philadelphia County

Plaintiff N.J. Citizen

Defendant PA Citizen

Sue in Philadelphia County