Wade Clark Mulcahy LLP

News WCM is Pleased to Announce that Matt Care has been Promoted to Partner June 30, 2021 < Back Share to: Effective, July 1, 2021, Matt Care is officially the newest partner in WCM's Philadelphia office. Matt started working at WCM in 2015. He primarily defends individuals and businesses in a wide variety of general liability, construction defect, premises liability, insurance coverage disputes, bad faith claims, professional liability claims, and product liability lawsuits, from inception up to and including trial. Matt regularly achieves excellent, cost-effective results for his clients and further has significant experience dealing with large loss, high exposure, and complex civil matters. Matt is a graduate of Princeton University and Temple University Beasley School of Law and is regularly involved with the local LGBT professional law organizations. Previous Next Contact

News PA's Highest Court Allows Reckless Conduct Defense in Products Cases. November 30, 2012 < Back Share to: In the case of Reott, et al. v. Asia Trend, et al., the plaintiff took a Remington tree stand and utilized a “ladder stick” to climb twenty to twenty-five feet to install the stand in a “suitable” tree. He placed the stand in the tree and cinched the locking strap around the tree trunk. Unfortunately, when he attempted to climb down the tree, the locking strap broke and he fell to the ground thereby suffering crushed vertebrae and a fractured wrist. The installation of the stand in the tree was contrary to all acceptable “tree strand” usage and the defendants pleaded reckless conduct as an affirmative defense. On appeal Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court was faced with the question of “whether a defendant in a products liability action must plead and prove as an affirmative defense that an injured party’s alleged “highly reckless conduct” was the sole or superseding cause of the plaintiff’s injuries.” The Court, in a binding and precedential decision, ruled that the answer is “yes.” The good news in this decision is that it gives defendants in a products case a way, albeit a difficult way, to get out from strict liability. If you have any questions about this post, please contact Bob Cosgrove at rcosgrove@wcmlaw.com . Previous Next Contact

News Call Your Next Witness - The 15 Commandments of Billing February 4, 2010 < Back Share to: What better topic to discuss during these hot Summer months than effective legal billing! Georgia and Brian recently compiled "The 5 Commandments of Billing," and with new associates starting at firms across the United States after Labor Day weekend, we opted to commit our 15 Commandments to the podcast. Link to the episode is here. The goal of this episode is to focus on the skill of billing -- and it is a skill -- in order to maximize the recovery on the work we do as attorneys. Much like insurance, legal billing is an area that law school ignores completely, but is essential for the majority of attorneys to master. If you'd like a pdf of the 15 Commandments of Billing, or are interested in being a guest on the podcast, please email Brian Gibbons or Georgia Coats Previous Next Contact

News Willful Destruction Of Evidence Could Result In The Striking Of Pleadings (NY) August 11, 2023 < Back Share to: On July 27, 2023, the Supreme Court of New York, Bronx County, in Fata v. Heskel's Riverdale LLC, an action for damages resulting from a trip and fall in a parking garage, issued a decision on a plaintiff’s motion to strike defendant’s answer based on an alleged spoliation of evidence. The defendant cross-moved for summary judgment claiming the plaintiff did not have the ability to establish causation because the plaintiff had memory loss following the incident. The plaintiff could not adequately remember the incident because of his injuries and resulting brain surgery from his fall. It was discovered that there were operable surveillance cameras that captured video of the plaintiff’s fall which was retrieved and reviewed by the defendant’s building superintendent. He subsequently failed to save the video recording, testifying that he thought it was unimportant and despite knowing that the recording would erase after three days. In evaluating the decision, the Court considered a two prong test: (1) whether the destruction of evidence was willful, contumacious or in bad faith and (2) whether the loss of the evidence deprives the moving party of the ability to prosecute or defend their case. Here, the Court held that the lost video recording evidence was crucial to the plaintiff’s case and that the defendant acted willfully in destructing said video. The Court also found that the absence of the surveillance video fatally compromised the plaintiff’s case, and left him without means to prove his claims. The Court pointed out that this is an example of a rare circumstance where the more common adverse inference sanction was insufficient to cure the prejudice against the plaintiff. Accordingly, the Court ordered that the defendant’s answer be stricken, that the plaintiff’s motion to strike based on spoliation of evidence be granted, that the defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment be denied, and that judgment on the issue of liability in favor of the plaintiff be granted. Thank you to Arianna Arca for her contribution to this article. Should you have any questions, contact John Diffley. Previous Next Contact

News A Plaintiff's Dream? The Unemployed Get Jury Duty Preference. June 25, 2012 < Back Share to: We tend to steer clear of more political discussions here at Of Interest, but every once in a while an idea comes along that we simply have to point out. According to Fred Clark, a well-known blogger, a solution to both the unemployment problem and the boring nature of jury duty would be to give jury duty preference to the unemployed and combine jury duty with a job fair. As if finding a fair and impartial jury isn't hard enough... For more information about this post, please contact Bob Cosgrove at rcosgrove@wcmlaw.com . Previous Next Contact

News The Inherent Hazards Of Sanitation Work Preclude Action When Worker Killed By Hit-And-Run Driver July 18, 2008 < Back Share to: In Consalvo v. City of New York et al, a hit-and-run driver struck and killed a sanitation worker who was removing a dead cat from a roadway. In this wrongful death action, the plaintiffs asserted that the defendants were negligent in failing to dispatch two sanitation workers at the time of this accident. The defendants moved for summary judgment arguing that they breached no duty owed to the decedent. The trial court denied the defendants' motion. In reversing the trial court and dismissing the plaintiffs' case, the Appellate Division, Second Department held that "the duty of an employer to provide its employees with a safe place to work does not extend to hazards which are part of or inherent in the very work which the employee is to perform nor to secure the safety of an employee against the condition, or even defects, risks or dangers that may be readily observed by the reasonable use of the senses, having in view the age, intelligence and experience of the employee." Here, with ten years on the job, this decedent's work included picking up dead animals from the roadway and the risk of being struck by a car was readily observable. Moreover, plaintiffs failed to produce any evidence that the defendants were required to assign more than one worker to retrieve a dead cat. http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2008/2008_06186.htm Previous Next Contact

News While Use Of Man-Lift Results In Death, Employer, Repairer, Inspector and Manufacturer Not Liable October 9, 2008 < Back Share to: In Altinma v. East 72nd Garage Corp et al, plaintiff’s decedent sustained fatal injuries when he was allegedly pinned beneath a single-person vertical transportation device called a man-lift while working at Somerset Garage in Manhattan. Plaintiff brought this action against East 72nd, the garage license holder, Ace Overhead Garage Door Inc, the entity that repaired the man-lift on an as-needed basis and Charles Calderone Associates Inc, the entity that performed annual inspections of the man-lift. Multiple third-party actions were commenced, including an action in strict products liability against Humphrey Man-Lift Corp, the man-lift manufacturer. All of the original parties and Humphrey moved for summary judgment. The trial court granted East 72nd summary judgment as against plaintiff, but denied summary judgment as to cross-claims. Humphrey was also awarded summary judgment and all of the original parties appealed. The Appellate Division, Second Department reversed the trial court’s decision and granted summary judgment to Ace and Calderone and affirmed the trial court’s decision as to East 72nd and Humphrey. Unpersuaded by plaintiff’s arguments that Ace and Calderone may have in the performance of their duties failed to properly inspect or warn so to “launch a force or instrument of harm,” the Appellate Court found as a matter of law they did not owe a duty to the non-contracting plaintiff. For East 72nd, the trial court correctly found the decedent to be a special employee and dismissed the action pursuant Workers’ Compensation Law §11. However, since the decedent suffered a grave injury, co-defendants’ cross-claims for indemnification and/or contribution remained viable. Lastly, since there was no triable issue of fact as to whether Humphrey marketed the man-lift that was not reasonably safe or that the alleged defective design of the man-lift was a substantial factor in causing plaintiff’s injury, the decision to grant Humphrey summary judgment was affirmed. http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2008/2008_07202.htm Previous Next Contact

News Untimely Expert Report Leads to Dismissal (NJ) March 10, 2017 < Back Share to: In New Jersey, the verbal threshold limits plaintiffs from bringing a lawsuit for injuries sustained in an automobile accident. Specifically, this limitation requires a permanent injury or one that results in a whole or partial loss of a body member or function in order to file suit. Plaintiffs must produce expert reports or documents that support a finding of some level of permanent injury in order to vault the limitation-on-lawsuit threshold as soft-tissue injuries are not sufficient. In Resua v. Hachkian, plaintiffs were rear-ended by a vehicle operated by an intoxicated defendant. The principal issue was plaintiffs’ damages, as both plaintiffs alleged various soft-tissue injuries that were not sufficient to vault the limitation-on-lawsuit threshold without an expert report supporting a finding of permanent injuries. During the lawsuit, plaintiffs’ attorney had a relapse on an illness that caused delays in discovery. As such, he failed to produce expert reports within the discovery deadline. After an unsuccessful arbitration, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. Plaintiffs produced expert reports in late August and additionally filed a cross-motion seeking an extension of the discovery end date. The trial court denied plaintiff’s motion and granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment, opining that plaintiffs’ attorney’s illness did not constitute an exceptional circumstance warranting an extension of discovery, and finding that plaintiff’s medical records without the support of expert opinion did not suffice to establish permanent injuries. On appeal, the appellate court agreed that that plaintiffs’ attorney failed to show how his illness impacted his ability to function in the months leading up to the latest discovery end date when his expert reports were due. As such, the plaintiffs’ expert reports were to be disregarded and without expert reports, plaintiffs failed to show permanent injury. Thanks to Steve Kim for his contribution to this post. Please email Brian Gibbons with any questions. Previous Next Contact

News U.S. Copyright Office: Artwork Created Through AI Is Not Afforded Copyright Protection May 19, 2022 < Back Share to: The U.S. Copyright Office recently rejected a second request for copyright protection on a work of art created through artificial intelligence (“AI”). Steven Thaler is a self-proclaimed AI pioneer and creator of the artificial intelligence program called the “Creativity Machine.” In essence, the Machine uses a computer algorithm to generate images with little to no human interaction. In November 2018, Thaler filed an application in the US Copyright office for a work titled “A Recent Entrance to Paradise,” and listed the Machine as the artist itself. The work was part of a series generated by the Machine that was programmed to create “hallucinatory images about the afterlife.” In August 2019, the Copyright office rejected Thaler’s application because the Machine-generated work “lacked the human authorship necessary to sustain a claim in copyright.” Thereafter, Thaler asked the office to reconsider its decision and argued that the “human authorship” standard was unconstitutional. Upon its second review, the Office affirmed its initial denial. In a letter to Thaler’s attorney, the Office emphasized that the Copyright Act “only protects the fruits of intellectual labor” that are “founded in the creative powers of the mind.” Under that standard, a work that was created without contribution from a human author was ineligible for registration. The issues raised by Thaler’s application, and the Office’s responses to those questions, are both legal and existential in nature. At what point is an operation performed by a machine – that is, a machine that a human mind envisioned and created – no longer a “fruit of intellectual labor”? The Copyright Act is notoriously complex and unpredictable, and its application in the up-and-coming field of AI will be interesting to follow. Thank you to Alexandra Deplas for her contribution to this post. Please contact Andrew Gibbs with any questions. Previous Next Contact

News Plaintiff's Improper Use Of A Supplemental Bill Of Particulars And Punitive Damages Thwarted March 6, 2008 < Back Share to: On the eve of trial in the personal injury action Kraycar v. Monahan, plaintiff successfully moved for leave to serve a supplemental bill of particulars and for leave to serve an amended complaint seeking punitive damages. The Appellate Division, Second Department reversed since plaintiff improperly sought to introduce only new injuries with the supplemental bill of particulars. Moreover, since it was not established that defendant's actions were willful or wanton negligence, plaintiff's added claim for punitive damages was without merit, equally warranting a denial of that branch of his motion. http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2008/2008_01923.htm Previous Next Contact

News NY Court to Plaintiff: Look Both Ways When You Cross the Street! December 15, 2011 < Back Share to: In Garcia v. El-Zien, plaintiff, a pedestrian, was injured when she struck by a vehicle making a right turn at the intersection. Plaintiff was crossing in the crosswalk and the light was in her favor. Certainly, not a favorable set of facts for the defendant, and plaintiff moved for summary judgment. However, while noting that the vehicle was in violation of traffic laws, the court denied summary judgment on the basis that plaintiff did not show that she was free of comparative fault. Specifically, plaintiff failed to state that she looked for oncoming traffic before she began to cross the street. Looks like Mom and Dad were right again! http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2011/2011_08902.htm Thanks to Jung Lee for his contribution to this post. If you would like more information, please write to mbono@wcmlaw.com . Previous Next Contact

News 9/11 $575,000,000 Settlement Rejected by Court. March 20, 2010 < Back Share to: In a stunning development, Judge Alvin Hellerstein has rejected the $575,000,000 settlement reached by the parties. Judge Hellerstein ruled that the settlement was "not enough." It's back to the drawing board in MC 100. http://www.1010wins.com/-This-Settlement-Is-Not-Enough-/6615869 Previous Next Contact