J. Mark Pecci, II was successful in obtaining Summary Judgment in Philadelphia County. Plaintiffs, wife and husband, alleged loss of consortium claims as a result of an assault to the wife which occurred in their apartment building. At the time the Motion for Summary Judgment was filed, the loss of consortium claims were the only claims left against Defendant. During the course of the litigation, the Plaintiff husband died. Our Motion for Summary Judgment argued that the loss of consortium claims were no longer viable as the Plaintiff husband was no longer living and such claims could not survive. The Philadelphia trial Court granted the loss of consortium claims as to Defendant which resulted in the ultimate dismissal from the case.  

On January 27, 2017, Mary Labaree, Esquire and Mark Merlini, Esquire of Marks, O’Neill, O’Brien, Doherty & Kelly’s Philadelphia office conducted a seminar,  “Medical Malpractice and Liability for Physician Assistants” to students in the Physician Assistant Program at Salus University in Elkins Park, PA. The seminar discussed basic legal principles as they pertain to physician assistants and other healthcare providers, including reporting requirements, pertinent regulations and statutes, agreements, oversight of the Commonwealth agencies and negligence concepts.

On February 2, 2017, the Honorable Vivian L. Mednilla of the Superior Court of the State of Delaware, ruled that a manufacturer/supplier of asbestos containing component parts (i.e. paper), used by its customer (i.e. pipe manufacturer),  does not owe a duty to warn the spouse of the customer’s employee as no special relationship exists between the supplier/manufacturer  and the spouse.  Ramsey v. The Georgia Southern University Advanced Development Center (Herty Foundation), CA N14C-01-287 ASB (Del. Super. J. Mednilla, Feb. 2, 2017).   In so holding, the court agreed that the failure to warn is a claim of “non-feasance” and under Delaware law, a special relationship must exist between the defendant and plaintiff to establish the existence of a duty.   Finding no special relationship between the manufacturer/supplier and the “take-home exposed” spouse, summary judgment was granted.  The Judge, in accepting the defendants argument,  expressed that the ruling is a logical extension of existing Delaware law which holds that an employer/premises owners and employer contractors owe no duty to warn  spouses of their own employees on the basis that no special relationship existed between the employer/premises owner and spouse.

The case was presented by the Marks, O’Neill asbestos team in our Delaware office.

Eileen Ford, Esquire argued the motion for Herty Foundation. Medinilla on Household Exposure

Attorneys and staff of Marks, O’Neill, O’Brien, Doherty & Kelly participated in the Insurance Industry Charitable Foundation’s, “Week of Giving” by volunteering for Northern Children’s Services, an organization that supports the healthy development of children, while stabilizing their families to build stronger communities.