In October 2011, Nancy E. Zangrilli obtained a defense verdict after an arbitration in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The plaintiff alleged that as a result of a slip and fall on liquid at the defendant's retail premises, she sustained serious and permanent lumbar injuries that prevented her from fully returning to her employment. We argued that the plaintiff failed to present any evidence regarding the cause of the spill or how long it had remained on the floor before the accident. The arbitration panel agreed that the plaintiff failed to meet her burden that the defendant had constructive notice of the spill on the floor.

In September 2011, Nancy E. Zangrilli obtained summary judgment for the defendant retailer in the Court of Common Pleas for Chester County. The plaintiff, who was deemed a temporary employee of the defendant, alleged significant wrist injuries after a shelf fell on her hand while working at the defendant's retail store. The Court ruled that the plaintiff was a "borrowed servant," and therefore, the defendant was entitled to be protected from liability pursuant to the Pennsylvania Workers' Compensation immunity provisions.

In December 2009, Analisa Sondergaard obtained a defense verdict after an arbitration in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The plaintiff alleged that he sustained serious and permanent lumbar injuries that prevented him from obtaining employment. We argued that the plaintiff failed to present any evidence regarding how the orange Frisbee got on the floor, who put it on the floor, or how long it had been on the floor. The arbitration panel agreed that the plaintiff had failed to meet his burden that the retailer had constructive notice of the Frisbee on the floor.

On October 28, 2009, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's granting of summary judgment. In this case, the plaintiff alleged that he slipped but did not fall on drops of oil on the floor in the automotive department of a large retail store. He alleged that he sustained serious and permanent injuries to the lumbar spine which prevented him from returning to his job at the railroad. In our Motion for Summary Judgment, we argued that the plaintiff failed to establish that the retailer had either actual or constructive notice of the oil on the floor. The plaintiff was unable to come forward with any evidence regarding how the oil got on the floor, how long it had been there, or whether the retailer was aware of its presence. Instead, all evidence pointed to its regency as the plaintiff had been walking the aisle for several minutes prior to the incident and had not seen the drops. The plaintiff argued that it did not have to prove that the retailer had notice of the drops since the retailer stocked the oil containers on the shelf, thereby causing a slow leak from one of the containers. The Third Circuit rejected the plaintiff's contention that stocking of the shelf was sufficient to establish that the retailer created the condition on the floor. The Third Circuit adopted the findings of the trial court and agreed that the plaintiff had no evidence to show that the oil had been present for an unreasonable amount of time.

In May 2009, Analisa Sondergaard obtained a dismissal of all claims when the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas granted the defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment in a false arrest case. Representatives of a large retailer's store security observed two men select two computers in the Electronics Department and exit the store without paying for the computers. The two men were stopped in the parking lot and asked to produce a receipt. Instead of producing a receipt, they jumped into a white Jeep and fled. Representatives of the store provided physical descriptions of the men and a license plate number to the Philadelphia Police Department. The license plate was traced to a white Jeep that was registered to the plaintiff's wife. The plaintiff's photograph was inserted into an eight person photo spread, and the plaintiff was subsequently identified as one of the men who took the computers. The Philadelphia Police obtained a warrant for the plaintiff's arrest. The plaintiff was found not guilty at his criminal trial and subsequently brought multiple claims against the retailer including false arrest and malicious prosecution. In our Motion for Summary Judgment, we argued that the retailer was protected by the Shopkeeper's Privilege and that the evidence was sufficient to establish probable cause to arrest. The trial court evaluated the undisputed facts and agreed that as a matter of law there was probable cause to arrest the plaintiff. The trial court dismissed all claims against the retailer.

February 2009 - Patrick J. McDonnell and Nancy E. Zangrilli obtained a defense verdict in a products liability case tried before a jury in the Superior Court of New Jersey for Ocean County. In that case, an insurer for a commercial property sought damages in excess of $500,000 in connection with a fire that caused substantial property and economic damages due to an alleged manufacturing defect in a space heater. Plaintiff's experts claimed that an electrical fault within the heater ignited the plastic housing, which then spread throughout the multi-residential apartment house. Plaintiff claimed losses to the structure, lost profits, and lost rents. The defense team contended that the space heater was not defective and that the fire was caused by obsolete and faulty "knob and tube" electrical wiring within the wall cavity of the property. Following a two-week trial, the jury determined that the defendant's space heater did not contain a manufacturing defect and, therefore, did not cause the fire.

September 2008 - Patrick J. McDonnell obtained a defense verdict in an alleged slip and fall case tried before a jury in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in December 2007. A 29 year old woman sought damages in excess of $500,000 in connection with an alleged slip and fall on an oil patch outside the bay doors of a large retail store's Tire & Lube Center. Plaintiff claimed to have suffered three herniated discs and underwent lumbar laminectomy and discectomy. Defense attorney Mr. McDonnell contended that Plaintiff did not fall or suffer any injuries at the store. Following a multi-day trial, the jury determined that the defendant did not cause the plaintiff's alleged injuries.  Following the jury verdict, plaintiff filed a motion for new trial.  On September 12, 2008, the Honorable James T. Giles denied plaintiff's motion.

March 2008 - The Eastern District of Pennsylvania affirmed a jury verdict in the amount of $12,500 in a case involving alleged head, neck and back injuries. Plaintiff, represented by Saltz, Mongeluzzi, Barrett & Bendesky, P.C., claimed that she suffered disabling head, back and neck injuries as a result of falling merchandise in a large retail store. Plaintiff sought a multi-million dollar verdict and alleged economic damages alone in excess of $1 million. The defendant store, represented at trial by Patrick J. McDonnell, contended that the falling products caused only trivial injuries and did not give rise to any alleged extensive injuries. Following the jury verdict, the plaintiff filed a motion for a new trial, and, on March 5, 2008, the Honorable Thomas N. O'Neill, Jr. denied Plaintiff's motion.