Eakin's Opinions

* Commonwealth v. Young, PICS Case No. 01-0119 (Pa. Super. Jan. 26, 2001) Brosky, J.; Eakin, J., dissenting (16 pages). Dissent. – The majority ruled that it was reversible error for a trial judge to allow a jury to take a defendant’s written confession into deliberations.



The question was whether the judge’s actions should be analyzed under the reversible-error or the harmless-error standard.



Eakin dissented, saying that although there was a clear rule violation in the defendant’s case, a lawful conviction need not be reversed every time the rule is violated. He supported the harmless-error standard.



* Davis v. Mullen, PICS Case No. 00-1031 (Pa. Super. May 31, 2000) Del Sole, J.; Eakin, J., dissenting (5 pages). Dissent. – The majority said awards for medical expenses and compensation for pain and suffering must always go hand in hand.



Eakin, dissenting, said he was bothered that the court so readily found pain and suffering awards were appropriate in such cases.



The state Supreme Court later reversed the majority’s decision.



* Boyd v. Hershey Medical Center, PICS Case No. 00-0498 (Pa. Super. March 16, 2000) Memorandum Decision (10 pages). Memorandum opinion. – A jury foreman’s notes detailing his recollection of events that transpired in the courtroom and then used in deliberations did not obviously prejudice the plaintiffs in a medical malpractice trial that resulted in a defense verdict.



The high court denied allocatur review of the case.



* Seven Springs Farm Inc. v. Crocker, PICS Case No. 00-0449 (Pa. Super. March 13, 2000) Eakin, J.; Johnson, Cavanaugh, Musmanno, JJ., dissenting (38 pages).- A majority of a deeply divided en banc panel said an agreement of a closely held corporation restricting the disposition of stock by family stockholders is not triggered by a “cash-out merger,” since the term “merger” was not explicitly used in the agreement.



Pennsylvania corporation law disfavors agreements restricting the transfer of stock, Eakin said, writing for the majority.



* In re Matter of Long, PICS Case No. 00-0113 (Pa. Super. Jan. 21, 2000) Eakin, J. (5 pages).—”Good cause” must be shown to prove a need to unseal adoption records. The court must consider the ramifications for all parties involved.



* Frederick v. Action Tire Co., PICS Case No. 99-2392 (Pa. Super. Dec. 28, 1999) Eakin, J. (13 pages). – A plaintiff cannot raise factual issues already resolved in a workers’ compensation case in a subsequent civil case.



Eakin, writing for the majority, said the ruling in Rue v. K-mart, PICS Case No. 98-1391 (June 16, 1998) Newman, J. (11 pages), in which the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that the parties to an unemployment compensation case are not collaterally estopped from relitigating the issues in a civil case, was not applicable to a workers’ compensation case.



* Wack v. Farmland Industries, PICS Case No. 99-2383 (Pa. Super. Dec. 27, 1999) Eakin, J. (11 pages). – A plaintiff who couldn’t establish a causal link between a leakage from an underground storage tank and the development of a rare cancer cannot recover personal injury damages under the Storage Tank and Spill Prevention Act.



But hidden in that ruling is what appears to be the first time the court has held that a personal injury claim is permitted under the Storage Tank and Spill Prevention Act.



* Browne v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co., PICS Case No. 98-1424 (Pa. Super. June 23, 1998) Eakin, J. (7 pages). – Insurance companies can be hit for interest when they fight arbitration awards, even if the policy limits have been reached.



The decision reversed a divided common pleas court panel that said insurance companies didn’t have to pay any interest.

Ford Elliott’s Opinions

* Commonwealth v. Duncan, PICS Case No. 00-0623 (Pa. Super. April 4, 2000) Ford Elliot, J. (23 pages).—Individuals have no privacy interest in their names or addresses used in connection with their bank records.



The commonwealth may make warrantless searches of such information.



* Thomas v. Thomas, PICS Case No. 99-1858 (Pa. Super. en banc Sept. 30, 1999) Stevens, J.; Ford Elliott, J., concurring; Johnson, J., concurring in majority opinion and concurrence (21 pages). Concurrence.-The majority said that the seminal test used to analyze parental relocations, Gruber v. Gruber, 583 A.2d 434 (Pa. Super. 1990), applies to cases involving parents with joint custody.



In her concurrence, Ford Elliott voiced a concern that was not addressed in the majority opinion.



She claimed a Gruber application in a joint custody situation changes the case from merely a determination on relocation to one about which parent will gain primary custody, an area in which Gruber has no place.



* Urban v. Dollar Bank, PICS Case No. 99-0256 (Pa. Super. Feb. 18, 1999) Ford Elliot, J. (16 pages). – Employees can sue their bosses for defamation and malicious abuse of process because those claims aren’t barred by the Workers’ Compensation Act’s exclusivity provision.



* Dansak v. Cameron Coca-Cola Bottling Co. Inc., PICS Case No. 97-2464 (Pa. Super. Nov. 18, 1997) Ford Elliot, J.; Beck, J., concurring in result (43 pages). – Plaintiffs’ cases shouldn’t automatically be thrown out on summary judgment just because a key piece of evidence is destroyed.



So long as the plaintiffs weren’t directly responsible for getting rid of the evidence, Ford Elliott said, and they can identify the product that injured them, they shouldn’t be punished by having their cases dismissed at the summary judgment stage.



The high court denied allocatur review of the case.



* Rue v. Kmart Corp., PICS Case No. 97-0681 (Pa. Super en banc March 20, 1997) Popovich, J.; Ford Elliot, J., concurring and dissenting (32 pages). Dissent. – A majority of the court en banc said collateral estoppel doesn’t apply to findings made in unemployment compensation proceedings.



But Ford Elliott in dissent said the majority’s ruling conflicted with earlier rulings in which collateral estoppel was applied to findings from administrative proceedings when workers later brought tort suits.



The state Supreme Court affirmed the majority.



* Gardner v. Erie Insurance Co., PICS Case No. 97-0313 (Pa. Super. Feb. 5, 1997) Ford Elliot, J.; Hudock, J., concurring (30 pages). – An employee who was injured on the job while driving his co-worker’s car could recover uninsured motorist benefits under his co-worker’s policy, even though he already received workers’ compensation benefits.



Ford Elliott suggested that so long as an employer has a right of subrogation, it isn’t double recovery, and workers can pursue several avenues of recovery other than workers’ compensation.



The high court affirmed the ruling.



* Troxel v. A.I. duPont, PICS Case No. 96-6061 (Pa. Super. April 17, 1996) Ford Elliot, J. (21 pages). – Doctors have a duty to warn patients with communicable diseases to stay away from third parties at risk for the disease.



The ruling expanded the duty physicians owe to third parties when treating patients with communicable diseases.



* Allwein v. Donegal Mutual Insurance Co., PICS Case No. 96-5535 (Pa. Super. en banc Feb. 20, 1996) Ford Elliot, J.; Popovich, J., dissenting (38 pages). – A severely split en banc court ruled that insurance companies can’t use “gap” insurance to offset their underinsured motorist liability in auto accidents because it violates public policy.



The ruling allowed insurance customers to receive excess coverage for accidents.

Butting Heads