James T. McDermott

This case arose from a 1979 bus accident in which Jane Tulewicz was struck and killed by a SEPTA vehicle, leading her estate's administrator to bring consolidated wrongful death and survival actions that resulted in a jury verdict of $2.75 million (later reduced by the trial court on the survival claim). After the Superior Court ordered a new trial on damages for the wrongful death portion and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court initially reversed that ruling, SEPTA petitioned for reargument and for the first time asserted a statutory grant of governmental immunity under Act No. 1978-152 (42 Pa.C.S. § 5111) that capped damages at $250,000 per plaintiff. The court held that the defense of governmental immunity is non-waivable and may be raised at any time, relying on precedent treating it as an absolute bar analogous to workers' compensation immunity; it further concluded that the 1978 statute applied to SEPTA and rejected constitutional challenges to the cap as well as arguments for separate per-beneficiary limits. As a result, the verdict was subject to the statutory cap.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case involved a wrongful death and survival action after Jane F. Tulewicz was fatally struck by a SEPTA bus in 1979. A jury awarded $2.5 million under the Wrongful Death Act and $250,000 under the Survival Act (later reduced by 5% for the decedent's negligence and further adjusted by the trial court), with delay damages bringing the total higher; the Superior Court found the verdict excessive. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed that finding and upheld the award. The court reasoned that the jury could value the decedent's lost earning capacity, home services, guidance, and companionship based on its own experience and evidence of her role as a mother and wife, and that the amount was not so grossly excessive as to show prejudice, mistake, or require reduction.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case was a negligence action brought by Maria Baldino against Dr. Armand Castagna and CIBA-GEIGY after she developed aplastic anemia from the drug Butazolidin-Alka, which the doctor had prescribed and later refilled without proper precautions or medical history. The jury found Dr. Castagna liable but returned a verdict in favor of CIBA-GEIGY, and the trial court denied post-trial motions seeking a new trial as to the manufacturer on weight-of-the-evidence grounds. The Superior Court reversed and ordered a new trial, but the Supreme Court reinstated the judgment, holding that sufficient evidence supported the jury's determination that the manufacturer had not overpromoted the drug so as to nullify its warnings. The court reasoned that factual conflicts in the evidence, including testimony about the effectiveness of warnings conveyed by detail men, were properly resolved by the jury and did not warrant disturbing the verdict absent findings clearly against the weight of the evidence.

torts & liabilityhealthcare

The case involved a defendant arrested for felony murder, robbery, and related charges after a store hold-up that resulted in the proprietor's death; he entered a negotiated guilty plea to third-degree murder and robbery in exchange for the dismissal of other charges. He later petitioned for relief under the Post Conviction Hearing Act, claiming the plea colloquy was defective for failing to explicitly advise him that any jury verdict must be unanimous and that counsel was ineffective for not challenging it. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed the denial of relief, ruling that a guilty plea's validity turns on whether the waiver of rights was knowing and intelligent under the totality of the circumstances rather than requiring explicit mention of every jury-trial element, and that the extensive colloquy and other facts here established a valid plea.

criminal lawprocedure