In Memorium – Donald J. P. Sweeney – 1938-2021Please Click Here

Recent Litigation Results

26Oct 2019

Sweeney & Sheehan partner Robyn Farrell McGrath won a Rule 12 dismissal of a civil rights case in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. In dismissing the claims brought by the Estates of two minors who were killed in an arson fire against a youth services organization of which the children’s family was a client, the Court found that the Estates had failed to state a claim for violation of the rights to procedural and substantive due process.

21May 2019

Sweeney & Sheehan partner J. Michael Kunsch obtained a defense verdict in a product liability case following three days of trial before Judge Mariani in the Middle District of Pennsylvania. Plaintiff claimed injury resulting from an alleged defect in a stepladder. The defense established that the ladder was not defective and did not cause the incident.

12Feb 2019

Sweeney & Sheehan Partner J. Michael Kunsch obtained summary judgment in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania following a successful Daubert challenge of plaintiffs’ liability expert in a product liability case. Plaintiffs asserted claims of strict liability, negligence and breach of warranty against the manufacturer and seller of a fiberglass stepladder. The husband-plaintiff fell off the ladder in the master bathroom of his home while painting a skylight. He had positioned the ladder on a tarp, and claimed the ladder feet slipped and caused his fall. The ladder contained a warning to “Set all four feet on a firm level surface. Do not place on unstable, loose or slippery surfaces.” Despite the presence of that warning, plaintiffs’ engineering expert opined that the ladder should have had a specific warning about the danger of the ladder slipping when placed on a tarp on a smooth tile surface. The Court found the expert’s opinion did not satisfy the Daubert reliability and fit requirements, noting that he made no inspections of the ladder or scene, performed no tests, cited no relevant industry standards, offered inconsistent opinions, and simply accepted plaintiff’s testimony about how the accident happened. After precluding the expert, the Court further found that no reasonable jury could conclude that the ladder was defective and entered summary judgment.

20Jun 2016

Associates Neal Thakkar and Joe Hauschildt recently prevailed in New Jersey’s Appellate Division in Lassandro v. Pep Boys, a case involving the intentional wrong exception to the exclusive remedy provision of the Workers’ Compensation Act. Under the Act, if an employee is entitled to recover workers’ compensation benefits, he is barred from suing his employer in tort unless the employer committed an intentional wrong. To overcome the bar, the plaintiff must prove that the employer’s act was substantially certain to result in injury or death, and that the resulting injury was plainly beyond what the legislature intended to immunize. This is a formidable standard that permits a plaintiff to recover in tort only under the most egregious of circumstances.

Here, the plaintiff was a service technician at Pep Boys, and he was injured while loading a vehicle onto a lift when the lift suddenly dropped, causing him to fall and injure his knee. The lift’s safety mechanisms had been disabled by another technician for convenience, but not at the direction of management. There had been no prior close calls with the lift, and the modification did not increase profit or productivity at the expense of safety. The evidence did show, however, that Pep Boys should have been aware that the safeties were defeated, and that it permitted the condition to exist for at least two years.

Plaintiff recovered workers’ compensation benefits, but sued Pep Boys for damages. The trial court denied summary judgment, but the Appellate Division granted leave to appeal and reversed. In its opinion, the court found that while Pep Boys’ conduct was arguably negligent, creating a risk of injury by omission is not tantamount to acting with the substantial certainty that an injury would result. Further, the court held that the injury suffered by plaintiff was not one that plainly beyond what the legislature intended to immunize, as the nature of the plaintiff’s employment led to the risk of injury.

Joe Hauschildt, a former Appellate Division clerk, wrote the brief, and Neal Thakkar argued the case. The opinion can be found here: http://www.njlawarchive.com/201606101025091314065283

23Dec 2015

Sweeney & Sheehan Partner Robyn McGrath obtained a defense verdict in a malicious prosecution case tried to a jury in Atlantic County, New Jersey. The case was based upon allegations by Plaintiff, president of an HVAC contracting company ,that the Defendant owner of an equipment supplier wrongfully filed a criminal complaint against Plaintiff personally when the Plaintiff’s company bounced several checks. After a three day trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the Defendant after only five minutes of deliberation.

23Dec 2015

In November 2015, Sweeney & Sheehan Partner Frank Gattuso prevailed with a defense verdict at a trial before Judge Millenky in Camden County Superior Court. A jury of 8 persons unanimously rendered a verdict of “no cause” in an automobile liability case where liability was stipulated. After a 5 day trial where there was a significant amount of legal argument made during the trial concerning the admissibility of evidence, the jury felt that the plaintiff did not have permanent injuries related to the accident and found in favor of the defense.

30Dec 2014

In a case where a sexual harassment plaintiff who was allegedly raped by her immediate supervisor accepted an offer of judgment approximately one-tenth of her settlement demand, plaintiff’s counsel filed a fee petition seeking more than $1.2 in attorneys’ fees. Firm partner, Robyn McGrath, successfully argued to the court that the plaintiff’s attorneys’ engaged in double billing, billing for unnecessary work, and overcharging for almost every task.

Continue reading

26Dec 2014

The New Jersey Appellate Division affirmed a summary judgment order obtained by Partner, Robyn McGrath, and Senior Associate, Denise Montgomery, in a case where a fifteen year old special education student was shot on the grounds of his school. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendant school on the grounds of charitable immunity. On appeal, plaintiff argued that the trial court had erred in holding that the conduct of the defendant school and its employees did not constitute gross negligence as a matter of law and that the question should be decided by a jury.

Continue reading

05Dec 2014

Partner, Robyn McGrath, obtained summary judgment in an action by a ranking police officer seeking an order of mandamus directing a Pennsylvania municipality to restore him to a higher rank. The officer had been Chief of Police but was demoted when a new mayor was elected. The officer argued that, under the Pennsylvania statutory scheme, he was entitled to a rank no lower than that of Deputy Chief of Police.

Continue reading

Donald J. P. Sweeney, Esquire

1938-2021

Sweeney & Sheehan mourns the loss of its founder, Donald J.P. Sweeney, Esquire, on June 8, 2021. He was a proud graduate of St. Athanasius Catholic School, St. Joseph's Preparatory School, Villanova University and Temple Law School. He practiced law for nearly 40 years, and founded Sweeney & Sheehan in 1971. He was active litigator and he specialized in catastrophic product liability cases. Don supported his children's activities, serving as soccer coach at St. Albert the Great Catholic Church and President of the CYO. He was a lector for nearly 48 years and a member of the choir. He was an active supporter of St. Joseph's Prep and was awarded the Alumnus of the Year Award in 1999 and the Rev. Charles Schnorr, SJ '37 Service Award in 2005. He retired from the practice of law in 2004.

Don is survived by his wife of 59 years, Ann, his children, Shannon, Patrick, Daniel, Gerard and Suzanne, and ten grandchildren.

Read More