Daniel D. Stofko

Representative Matters:Defense Verdict in Product Liability Case - Obtained a defense verdict on behalf of a client in a product liability case tried in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania through cross-examination which revealed inconsistencies in the plaintiff's testimony and convinced the jury that the product failure was due to Plaintiff's own misuse.; Summary Judgment for Snow Removal Contractor - Obtained summary judgment in the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas on the basis of the Hills and Ridges Doctrine in successfully defending client snow removal contractor in a slip and fall case. The decision, appealed by the Plaintiff, was affirmed by the Superior Court.; Summary Judgment Affirmed by Superior Court - Rovinsky v. Lourdesmont - Obtained Summary Judgement in the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas decision in a slip and fall case that arose out of a cafeteria food fight, arguing that the Plaintiff's deposition testimony demonstrated that the Plaintiff was aware of the risk created by the food fight and that she voluntarily chose to encounter such risk. The decision, appealed by the Plaintiff, was affirmed by the Superior Court.; Summary Judgment Victory for School District... and for Continued Access to Public Parks - Obtained summary judgment in Luzerne County on behalf of a local school district, in a case involving a child who was injured as a result of being pushed from playground equipment by another child by demonstrating that the real property exception to immunity did not apply, as it can be applied only to those cases where it is alleged that the artificial condition or defect of the land itself causes the injury, not merely when it facilitates the injury by the acts of others, whose acts are outside the statute's scope of liability; Discovery Sanctions Lead to Early Summary Judgment on Behalf of Client - Obtained summary judgment on behalf his client in a lawsuit arising out of a residential construction project after the plaintiff failed to produce responses to detailed discovery requests and failed to comply with several Orders of Court compelling full and complete responses; sanctions against the plaintiff, which included the preclusion of all evidence and responses not produced were sought and obtained which resulted in an early summary judgement.; Summary Judgment Obtained on Claims of Fraud, Negligent Misrepresentation and Violation of Consumer Protection Laws - Obtained summary judgment in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania in a case filed by a homebuyer alleging fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and violation of consumer protection laws against multiple parties in the context of a land purchase and home construction agreement; Attorney Stofko built a case through further discovery and moved for summary judgment on the basis that plaintiffs could not establish justifiable reliance, as required under each claim.; Motion for Summary Judgment Granted in Parking Lot Trip and Fall - Obtained summary judgment in favor of a large retail client in a premises liability case filed in Luzerne County, Pennsylvania by uncovering a large body of fact-specific Pennsylvania case law in support of the proposition that it is the Plaintiff's burden to provide sufficiently detailed testimony positively identifying the specific defect alleged to have caused the trip and fall incident, rather than general allegations regarding alleged defects in a given area of a sidewalk or parking lot.; Secured Dismissal in Dram Shop Lawsuit Involving Fatality - Successfully secured a voluntary dismissal in a case where the decedent crashed his motorcycle and was killed shortly after leaving our client's premises. The toxicology report revealed his BAC to be more than three times the legal limit, but eyewitnesses testified that the decedent had not been visibly intoxicated when served. It was anticipated that Plaintiffs would argue visible intoxication could be established at trial through use of an expert toxicologist's testimony. Attorney Stofko cited caselaw supporting the proposition that a plaintiff in a dram shop case cannot make their case on expert toxicologist 'relation back' testimony alone. Shortly before oral argument, Plaintiffs chose to voluntarily discontinue the action.