Laurie handles premises liability matters for retail facilities, daycare centers, amusement parks, homeowners and businesses involving personal injury matters and governmental entities. She handles trucking and transportation as well as automobile liability litigation. Laurie is also a certified arbitrator in Philadelphia.
Prior to joining Marshall Dennehey, Laurie served as a law clerk to the Honorable Gene D. Cohen in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County where she wrote judicial opinions, observed trials, and prepared lecture materials for the National Judicial College.
Laurie is a graduate of Temple University School of Law and Ursinus College.
Honors & Awards
•The Best Lawyers in America, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants (2027)
•Pennsylvania Super Lawyer Rising Star (2005-2008, 2013-2015)
Classes/Seminars Taught
•Civil Litigation State of Affairs - The Impact of COVID-19 in Pennsylvania and New Jersey & What’s Next, Marshall Dennehey Client Webinar, May, 2021
•An Overview of Commercial Auto Insurance in Pennsylvania & Ohio, Marshall Dennehey Client Presentation, January 26, 2021
•The Art of the Deposition, Pennsylvania Bar Institute, June 2015
•Premises Liability Litigation: Focus on the Slip, Trip and Fall Case, Pennsylvania Bar Institute, November 2014
•Trying a Case in State Court from Start to Finish, Pennsylvania Bar Institute, July 2012, June 2014
•Preservation of Evidence--Counsel's Responsibility?, Defense Research Institute 15th Annual Personal Injury Potpourri, Philadelphia, PA, April 16, 2013
•Handling the Slip Trip & Fall, Pennsylvania Bar Institute, August 2010, Winter 2012
•Pennsylvania's New Joint and Several Liability Law, Pennsylvania Bar Institute, October 2011
•Premises Liability Seminar, Pennsylvania Association for Justice, 2010
•How the Medicare, Medicaid and SCHIP Extension Act of 2007 Will Impact our Practice, May 26, 2009
•Accident Documentation and Investigation, 2007 to present
Published Works
•'Production of Surveillance Evidence in Personal Injury Cases,' The Legal Intelligencer, Personal Injury Supplement, November 22, 2016
•“It’s All About the Timing...A Guide to Producing Surveillance Evidence of the Plaintiff in Personal Injury Cases,” Defense Digest, Vol. 22, No. 3, September 2016
•'Managing a Litigation Practice From a Woman's Perspective,' The Pennsylvania Lawyer, July-August, 2014
•'Let's Spare Some Trees - Standard Discovery Requests in Philadelphia Arbitration Cases,' Defense Digest, Vol. 11, No. 3, September 2005
•'With Friends Like These, Who Needs Enemies?' Defense Digest, Vol. 10, No. 4, December 2004
•'The Jury Can Only Follow the Instructions It's Given: An Analysis of Vallone v. Creech,' Defense Digest, Vol. 9, No. 3, September 2003
Results
Defense Verdict in Premises Liability Case
We obtained a defense verdict in a premises liability case where the plaintiff alleged that she tripped and fell on the defendant’s row home stairs outside the property. After less than an hour of deliberations, the jury found negligence, but no causation for the plaintiff’s injuries.
Defense Verdict in Plaintiff's 'Leaky' Case
We obtained a defense verdict in a three-day jury trial in the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas. The 81-year-old plaintiff, who was staying at her daughter's home, alleged that she slipped and fell on water in the basement of the rental property and injured her hip. The property was owned by our clients. The plaintiff's daughter and son-in-law claimed they repeatedly complained to our clients of leaks from the ceiling in the basement, without response. They were in the midst of eviction proceedings with our clients for failure to pay rent for several months when the fall occurred. Our clients denied any knowledge of the leaking problem alleged by the tenants, though they did admit that they were aware of leaks in other areas which they attempted to fix. The jury deliberated for 2 1/2 hours, had two questions, and asked for the negligence charge to be read back to them. They then returned a finding of no negligence. There was a nuisance value settlement offer made prior to trial, which was rejected.
Thought Leadership
Defense Digest
Sometimes Discovery Disputes Can Be Interesting
March 1, 2023
Key Points:The distinction between security video and surveillance video is important.Preservation of all possible video is critical to avoiding spoliation claims.Discovery issues aren’t usually the most moving and compelling (see what I did there), but a court’s resolution of those issues can be informative. One such discovery issue that is in flux much of the time concerns production of video footage in premises liability cases. Two recent opinions in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania are worth examining.In the case of Dietzel v. Costco, et al., 2022 WL 2703612 (E.D. Pa. July 12, 2022), the plaintiff claimed that he tripped and fell on an uneven sidewalk as he attempted to enter the tire center at Costco. According to the defendants, the alleged incident was not captured on their video cameras because there were no cameras covering the area in question. However, the plaintiffs noted that the claim notes produced by the defendants in discovery instructed the defendants to save video footage from the closest camera from one hour prior to the alleged incident until one hour after. Thus, the plaintiffs moved to compel production of any and all video footage from the entire property on the day of the alleged incident, regardless of whether that footage depicted the incident.In her opinion, Magistrate Judge Sitarski noted that the crux of the dispute was whether the footage in question was “security footage,” which was the plaintiffs’ position, or “surveillance footage,” as the defendants contended. Judge Sitarski noted that Pennsylvania courts have held that a defendant does not have to produce surveillance footage until after the plaintiff has been deposed because such footage is made for the purposes of impeachment. In contrast, the footage in that case was not a surveillance tape, rather, it was a security tape made in the normal course of business operations. Thus, Judge Sitarski ordered the defendants to produce 30 minutes of video footage before the time of the alleged incident and 30 minutes of footage after the incident, for a total of 60 minutes. Alternatively, if the defendants had no such footage, they were required to certify that in writing to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs were not required to appear for their depositions until after either the footage or the certification was produced.In the case of Defrehn v. TJX Companies, Inc., 2022 WL 2974717 (E.D. Pa. July 26, 2022), the plaintiff alleged that she was injured after she slipped and fell on a clear, gel-like substance inside of a TJ Maxx store on December 16, 2018. On December 31, 2018, the defendants’ insurance carrier requested that the defendants’ loss prevention district manager preserve all video footage from 20 minutes before and after the fall. The manager stated that no video of the incident existed. However, the manager later testified at his deposition that he had “reviewed” the footage but chose not to preserve it because he “didn’t think it was relevant.” In his testimony, he also confirmed that cameras would have captured when an employee removed cleaning supplies from a janitor’s closet.The defendants moved for summary judgment on the plaintiff’s negligence claim. The plaintiff argued that the motion should be denied because of the defendants’ failure to preserve the video. District Judge Robreno agreed, stating that the manager testified he reviewed the footage and chose not to preserve it, even though it was relevant in that it would have at least shown when employees removed cleaning supplies from the janitor’s closet. Thus, application of an adverse inference by the court precluded the defendants from prevailing on summary judgment. What’s the practical application of these decisions? First, it is critical to ensure that any video footage, even if it doesn’t show the alleged incident, is preserved from the entire location for the entire day of the incident, if possible. Many times we are forced to try to prove a negative, and being able to show that something didn’t happen, or couldn’t have happened, is key. Second, there should be clear guidelines in place at the facility level as to what steps should be taken in the event of a customer incident in terms of incident reporting and preservation of video footage.As your defense attorneys, we typically come in to these situations long after the fact. Having solid protocols in place for these events protects your business from spoliation claims and adverse inferences, or worse, and makes our job easier.
