The FirmPractice AreasAttorneysRecognition
  Willman & Silvaggio
 
 
News
Showing 1 through 5 of 136
Page 1 of 28 >> go to page
Favorable Ruling Obtained by Willman & Silvaggio, LLP, Awarding Client Summary Judgment Based Upon the Expiration of the Statute of Limitations
6/9/2010

On May 27, 2010, the PA Superior Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Common Pleas granting the defendant Mozart Management’s motion for summary judgment regarding Daniel Torisky’s personal injury claim.  Mr. Torisky’s claims for personal injuries and loss of consortium arose as a result of his fall allegedly caused by black ice in a parking lot operated by Mozart Mgmt.

 

Willman & Silvaggio, LLP Obtains a Court ruling for the Elks Which Upholds an Important Common Law Principle
5/31/2010

In a Per Curiam Order dated April 16, 2010, the Pa. Supreme Court denied an appeal by Richard Bisher, a member of the Scottsdale Elks Lodge No. 777, who sought recovery for injuries arising from a bizarre state of facts. On December 20, 2002, Mr. Bisher was assaulted in his home by another Elks Lodge member, Frank Moore, who had been drinking at the Elks Lodge the night before. Following the assault, Mr. Moore took his own life.

Pennsylvania Superior Court Reverses Defense Verdict in Products Liability Case Based on Error in Evidence Allowed at Trial
6/11/2009

On June 1, 2009, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania reversed and remanded the defense verdict in the strict products liability case of Tara Guadio individually and as the administratrix of the estate of Andrew Guadio v. Ford Motor Company, et al.

Ohio Court of Appeals Upholds Admissibility of Expert Testimony Regarding Asbestos Fiber Release Levels
6/11/2009

On June 4, 2009, the Ohio Court of Appeals upheld the trial court decision in favor of the defendant in Werts v. Goodyear Tire Co., et al.  The appellant claimed that the lower court erred by allowing the defendant’s experts to testify about a study that measured levels of asbestos fibers released by the defendant’s products.  The appellant also claimed the court erred in allowing these experts to testify about studies that had not been admitted into evidence. 

Ohio Appellate Court Confirms that Knowledge of Employee Exposure to Asbestos is not Enough to Establish Employer Intentional Tort
5/28/2009
On May 21, 2009, the Ohio Court of Appeals, 8th Appellate District, issued an opinion upholding a summary judgment decision for the defendant in the case of Beverly Fagerholm, Individually and as the Executrix of the Estate of George Fagerholm v. General Electric Co., et al. At deposition, a representative for General Electric admitted that the defendant was aware of the presence of asbestos at facility where the plaintiff was employed. Furthermore, General Electric’s representative also admitted that the defendant was cognizant of the potential risks posed to employees by asbestos exposure. However, the court determined that the plaintiff failed to present any evidence indicating that General Electric possessed actual knowledge that asbestos-related injuries were substantially certain to occur to employees at the facility in question and, therefore, a claim for Employer Intentional Tort could not be sustained. The defendant’s position was bolstered by evidence indicating that the facility was in compliance with all state safety regulations and that the plaintiff-decedent ignored safety procedures that General Electric installed to mitigate the effects of asbestos exposure. Consequently, the court affirmed the grant of summary judgment for the defendant.
In this section:
The Firm
Careers
Articles
Link Library
News & Upcoming Events
Contact Us  |  One Corporate Center, 5500 Corporate Drive, Suite 150  Pittsburgh, PA 15237 | Phone: (412) 366-3333
© Copyright . All rights reserved.