Christian A. Weimann

Christian graduated from Loyola Marymount University in 2006 with a Bachelor of Arts degree in English. Christian received his juris doctor in 2010 from Villanova University School of Law. During law school, Christian clerked for the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office where he primarily worked in the Victim Impact Program, addressing the needs of victims with unique vulnerability, including the elderly, children, and victims of hate crimes, sexual abuse, stalking, and domestic violence. Christian was also a Staff Writer and Associate Editor of Student Works for the Villanova Environmental Law Journal, Inclusive Committee Representative for the Latin American Law Students Association, and a 2009 Public Interest Fellowship Program Summer Fellow.

Honors & Awards

•The Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch, Mass Tort Litigation/Class Actions - Defendants (2021-2025)
•The Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch, Transportation Law (2024-2025)

Published Works

•“The Hills and Ridges Doctrine: A Property Owner’s Best Friend When Conditions Get Slippery,” Defense Digest, June 2021, Vol. 27, No. 3
•'Potential Implications of Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court and BNSF Ry. v. Tyrrell on Mass Tort Litigation In Pennsylvania,' Defense Digest, Vol. 24, No. 1, March 2018

Results

Socially-distanced trial produces defense verdict for auto manufacturer.

After a masked and socially distanced two-day trial in Bucks County, we obtained a defense verdict in favor of an automotive manufacturer. The plaintiff purchased a new 2018 vehicle on March 10, 2018. Approximately one year after the purchase, the plaintiff complained several times that the start/stop function shut off and would not restart. The manufacturer identified the problem and was working on a solution. Meanwhile, the dealership told the plaintiff to turn off the start/stop function until a software update came out. The software update came out in early May of 2019, less than 80 days after the plaintiff’s first complaint. The plaintiff asserted claims under the Pennsylvania Automobile Lemon Law, Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, Uniform Commercial Code, and the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law that the vehicle’s repair history was all related to an intermittent and still unrepaired start/stop issue with the car. The defense successfully proved through witness and expert testimony that the vehicle’s mechanical problems were fixed in a timely fashion. The repair work done by the dealership under the warranty was effective and reliable, and the problem was permanently repaired. After trial, the judge requested that each side provide a memorandum with findings of fact and closing arguments. Upon review of same, a ruling was issued in our client’s favor.

Thought Leadership

Defense Digest

Tsunami or Business as Usual: What Does the New Motorcycle Lemon Law Hold for Pennsylvania?

June 1, 2025

Key Points: Effective May 18, 2025, purchasers of new motorcycles in Pennsylvania may bring Lemon Law suits. A nonconformity in a newly-purchased motorcycle must manifest “within a period of one year following the actual delivery of the motorcycle to the purchaser or during the term of the warranty, whichever may occur first.” The applicable Lemon Law period for newly-purchased motorcycles in Pennsylvania will typically be one year.After multiple legislative attempts and years of effort, effective May 18, 2025, purchasers of new motorcycles in Pennsylvania may bring Lemon Law suits. Most recently reintroduced in the Pennsylvania State Senate by Republican State Senator Michele Brooks in January 2023, Pennsylvania’s Lemon Law now provides similar consumer protections to purchasers of new motorcycles in Pennsylvania as those afforded to purchasers of new cars. Receiving bipartisan support, the addition of motorcycles to Pennsylvania’s Lemon Law was signed into law by Governor Josh Shapiro in November 2024.Pennsylvania is far from the first state to allow buyers of new motorcycles to bring Lemon Law suits. Pennsylvania now joins Arizona, Hawaii, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming as states that permit the filing of motorcycle Lemon Law suits.State Lemon Laws throughout the country, including Pennsylvania, are intended to supplement federal consumer protection remedies-such as the Magnuson-Moss Warranty-Federal Trade Commission Improvement Act and the Uniform Commercial Code-and to provide stronger protections for consumers. Under these state laws, consumers are given an avenue in civil court to enforce warranties issued by manufacturers of new motor vehicles. In Pennsylvania, manufacturers have a duty to “repair or correct, at no cost to the purchaser, a nonconformity which substantially impairs the use, value or safety” of a new motor vehicle purchased for personal, family, or household use. 73 Pa.C.S. 1954(a). If there is a nonconformity in a new motor vehicle within the first 12 months or 12,000 miles of ownership, whichever comes first, and the manufacturer fails to repair the nonconformity after more than three repair attempts, or if the vehicle is out of service by reason of any nonconformity for a cumulative total of 30 or more days, then the vehicle is a presumptive lemon. 75 Pa.C.S. 1956. Under Pennsylvania’s Lemon Law, a purchaser of a new motor vehicle that is a presumptive lemon can demand a repurchase of the vehicle by the manufacturer or have the vehicle swapped with a vehicle of comparable value. 75 Pa.C.S. 1955.As of May 18, 2025, purchasers of new motorcycles in Pennsylvania for personal, family, or household use can now make the same demand if there is a nonconformity in the newly-purchased motorcycle. A distinct difference, however, is that the nonconformity in the motorcycle must manifest “within a period of one year following the actual delivery of the motorcycle to the purchaser or during the term of the warranty, whichever may occur first.” 75 Pa.C.S. 1954. As most motorcycle manufacturers provide limited warranties for newly purchased motorcycles ranging from one to three years, the applicable Lemon Law period for newly purchased motorcycles in Pennsylvania will typically be one year.So what does this change to Pennsylvania’s Lemon Law mean for motorcycle manufacturers? Will motorcycle manufacturers be swept up in a tsunami of Pennsylvania Lemon Law suits now that the Commonwealth’s Lemon Law covers motorcycles? While it is too soon to say for sure, the answer is likely no. Recent motorcycle registration data is instructive. In 2021, there were 8,575,569 motorcycles registered in the United States, but only 18,226 new motorcycles were purchased that same year, or 0.2% of all registered motorcycles. Eric Teoh, Motorcycles Registered in the United States, 2002-2021, 7 (Insurance Institute for Highway Safety) (March 2021). By way of stark contrast, there were 15,016,030 new cars and light trucks sold and leased in the United States in 2021. New and Used Passenger Car and Light Truck Sales and Leases, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, https://www.bts.gov/content/new-and-used-passenger-car-sales-and-leases-thousands-vehicles. While the addition of motorcycles to Pennsylvania’s Lemon Law is worth highlighting and keeping an eye on, at this juncture, motorcycle manufacturers need not panic. Rather than lawsuits, perhaps motorcycle manufacturers should really be worried that they are not selling enough new motorcycles. Defense Digest, Vol. 31, No. 2, June 2025, is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1. 2025 Marshall Dennehey. All Rights Reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm. For reprints, contact [email protected].

Defense Digest

The Hills and Ridges Doctrine: A Property Owner’s Best Friend When Conditions Get Slippery

June 1, 2021

Key Points:The “hills and ridges” doctrine imposes a heightened burden on a plaintiff who slips and falls on snow and ice, and it can insulate a property owner from liability altogether.The “hills and ridges” doctrine protects a property owner from liability for generally slippery conditions resulting from snow or ice where the property owner has not permitted the snow or ice to unreasonably accumulate in ridges and elevations.Under the “hills and ridges” doctrine, property owners are not obligated to plow, salt or shovel their property until a reasonable time after a snowstorm has ended.With the arrival of spring and winter in the history books, property owners will be braced for another round of lawsuits alleging slip and falls on snow and ice. In Pennsylvania, however, the “hills and ridges” doctrine imposes a heightened burden on a plaintiff who slips and falls on snow and ice, and it can even insulate a property owner from liability altogether. Biernacki v. Presque Isle Condominiums Unit Owners Ass’n, Inc., 828 A.2d 1114, 1117 (Pa. Super. 2003).Generally, in order for a plaintiff to recover for a fall on a snow- or ice-covered surface, the plaintiff must prove that: (1) snow and ice had accumulated on the sidewalk in ridges or elevations of such size and character as to unreasonably obstruct travel and constitute a danger to pedestrians; (2) the landowner had either actual or constructive notice of the condition; and (3) it was the dangerous accumulation of snow or ice which caused the plaintiff to fall. Morin v. Traveler’s Rest Motel, Inc., 704 A.2d 1085, 1087-1088 (Pa. Super. 1997).The “hills and ridges” doctrine protects a property owner from liability for generally slippery conditions resulting from snow or ice where the property owner has not permitted the snow or ice to unreasonably accumulate in ridges and elevations. Morin, 704 A.2d at 1087-1088. However, what if a winter storm passes through and drops a considerable amount of snow and ice on a landowner’s property? If a pedestrian slips and falls on that fresh snow and ice, will the property owner be held liable? Under the “hills and ridges” doctrine, a property owner will not be held liable for general slippery conditions when these conditions prevail in the community. Tonik v. Apex, 275 A.2d 296, 298 (Pa. 1971).Further, under the “hills and ridges” doctrine, property owners are specifically not obligated to plow, salt or shovel their property until a reasonable time after the snowstorm has ended. Collins v. Philadelphia Suburban Dev. Corp., 179 A.3d 69, 75 (Pa. Super. 2018). In other words, under the “hills and ridges” doctrine, there is no duty to remove the snow and ice while the snowstorm is still active. Rinaldi v. Levine, 176 A.2d 623, 625 (Pa. 1962). Pennsylvania courts have made clear that there is no absolute duty on property owners to keep their properties completely free of snow and ice at all times. In one instance, the court found it was not reasonable to require a property owner to remove snow and ice from its parking lot by 7:45 a.m., when it had only begun to fall the night before. Biernacki, 828 A.2d at 1117.What if the property owner, or a snowplow company on behalf of the property owner, plows, salts, shovels or otherwise intervenes to remove snow and ice while the snowstorm is still active? Will the property owner or snowplow company lose the protections afforded under the “hills and ridges” doctrine? No. When a property owner, or a snowplow company on behalf of the property owner, takes steps to remove snow and ice during the course of a snowstorm, the property owner or snowplow company does not lose those protections. Moreover, when there is snowfall immediately prior to a slip and fall on snow and ice, intervention through plowing, salting or shoveling does not bar the application of the “hills and ridges” doctrine. Beck v. Holly Tree Homeowners Ass’n, 689 F. Supp. 2d 756, 765 (E.D. Pa. 2010). Additionally, in the absence of a claim grounded in contract, a snowplow company is protected by the “hills and ridges” doctrine to the same degree as the property owner. Biernacki, 828 A.2d. at 1117.Lastly, when there is evidence of rain on the date of a slip and fall and temperature change leads to an accumulation of ice, the “hills and ridges” doctrine is triggered even in the absence of snow. Beck v. Holly Tree Homeowners Ass’n, 689 F. Supp. 2d 756, 765 (E.D. Pa. 2010). In one such instance, the court held there would be no liability imposed on the owner of a parking lot which had icy patches in some areas of the lot where other areas of the lot were free of ice. Carrender v. Fitterer, 469 A.2d 120, 124-125 (Pa. 1983).*Christian is an associate in our Philadelphia, Pennsylvania office. He can be reached at 215.575.2737 or [email protected] Digest, Vol. 27, No. 3, June 2021 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1. 2021 Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin. All Rights Reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm. For reprints, contact [email protected].

News

Marshall Dennehey Celebrates 25th Anniversary of Advanced Trial Advocacy & Mock Trial Program

July 15, 2025