Pennsylvania’s appellate courts continue their trend of issuing groundbreaking legal decisions in areas ranging from jurisdiction to liability. The following is a summary of notable Pennsylvania appellate decisions from the last two years, as well as pending decisions that are sure to be blockbusters.

Jurisdiction Cases

Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co., 600 U.S. 122 (June 27, 2023)

• On a writ of certiorari from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.
  • Involved a plaintiff suing Norfolk Southern in Pennsylvania for exposures that occurred outside the state.
  • The Supreme Court upheld Pennsylvania’s corporate registration statute on due process grounds, allowing general personal jurisdiction over registered foreign corporations.
    • Under Pennsylvania law, a foreign corporation may not do business in the Commonwealth until it registers with the Department of State of the Commonwealth.
    • State law further establishes that registration constitutes a sufficient basis for Pennsylvania courts to exercise general personal jurisdiction over that foreign corporation.
  • Key takeway: Justice Alito’s concurrence raised dormant commerce clause concerns, which are now being litigated in Pennsylvania courts.

In re Paraquat Products Liability Litigation, No. 22050559 (Phila. Cnty. Ct. Com. Pl.), appeal denied 160 EDM 2023 (Pa. Super. Ct. Aug. 8, 2024), appeal denied 289 EAL 2024 (Pa. Feb. 19, 2025)

• Post-Mallory decision: One of several cases post-Mallory that seizes on Justice Alito’s concurrence to challenge Pennsylvania’s consent-to-registration statute under the dormant commerce clause.
  • Involves consolidated state mass tort lawsuits alleging herbicide exposure leading to neurological issues.
  • Most plaintiffs had no connection to Pennsylvania but could sue in Pennsylvania due to the consent-by-registration statute.
  • Defendant Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC, a foreign corporation registered to do business in Pennsylvania, is the primary defendant.
  • Syngenta first raised the issue of consent-to-registration statute’s constitutionality in preliminary objections to the trial court’s general personal jurisdiction. When the court overruled those preliminary objections, Syngenta then sought permission to appeal to the Pennsylvania Superior Court (appeal denied, Pa. Super. (Aug. 8, 2024)).
    • It thereafter sought permission to appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court (appeal denied, Pa. (Feb. 19, 2025)).
  • The case is pending a certiorari petition in the U.S. Supreme Court.

Venue Cases

Hangey v. Husqvarna, 304 A.3d 1120 (Pa. Nov. 22, 2023)

• Plaintiff sued a lawnmower manufacturer in Philadelphia, though injury and purchase occurred elsewhere.
  • Manufacturer objected to venue, citing minimal business in Philadelphia.
  • Key takeaway: Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that the percentage of a defendant corporation’s national revenue derived in the forum county “is not alone sufficient to determine whether the corporation did not ‘regularly conduct business’ there for purposes of Rule 2179(a)(2); “it is simply a data point that must be considered in the context of the company as a whole to determine regularity.”
  • Key takeaway: Dissent warned this could mean mere presence is enough for venue.

Watson v. Baby Trend, 308 A.3d 860 (Pa. Super. Ct. Jan. 12, 2024)

• Record supports the trial court’s decision to transfer the case to Bucks County.
  • “[G]iven the complete absence of any physical presence in Philadelphia through which Baby Trend conducts business activity essential to its business objective, i.e., wholesale sales to retailers, and the de minimis incidental business activity, there is no evidence demonstrating that Baby Trend’s contacts with Philadelphia County are continuous, habitual, or regular.”
  • Focused on lack of physical presence in Philadelphia for the corporate defendant, reinforcing the dissent in Hangey.

Forum Non Conveniens Cases

Ehmer v. Maxim Crane Works, L.P., 296 A.3d 1202 (Pa. Super. Ct. June 7, 2023), reargument denied (Pa. Super. Ct. Aug. 14, 2023)

• Case transferred from Philadelphia to Columbia County just before trial; Superior Court reversed, finding abuse of discretion.
  • Supreme Court took up related cases; petition for appeal withdrawn; case marked settled.
  • Key takeaway: Movant must establish the potential witnesses claiming burden or hardship are “key witnesses” possessing testimony “relevant and necessary” to the defense.
• Tranter v. Z&D Tour, Inc., 303 A.3d 1070 (Pa. Super. Oct. 11, 2023), appeal granted 315 A.3d 1225, 2024 WL 1401320 (Pa. Apr. 2, 2024) (per curiam) Bus crash with no Pennsylvania residents; case filed in Philadelphia.
  • Venue transfer out of the county; Superior Court reversed after extensive jurisdictional discovery.
  • Key takeaway: A defendant seeking a change of venue must show that the plaintiff’s chosen forum is “oppressive” and that potential witnesses are “key” with “relevant and necessary” information for the defense.
  • Supreme Court decision pending; outcome will guide future forum non conveniens analysis.

Arbitration Cases

Chilutti v. Uber Technologies, 300 A.3d 430 (Pa. Super. Ct. July 19, 2023) (en banc), appeal granted 325 A.3d 446, 2024 WL 3947922 (Pa. Aug. 27, 2024) (per curiam)

• Passenger injured in Uber, sought jury trial; Uber moved to compel arbitration based on online terms.
  • Key takeaway: Superior Court found no valid arbitration agreement and allowed jury trial.
    • Uber’s website did not provide reasonably conspicuous notice of the terms to which the plaintiffs were bound.
      • Unambiguous manifestation of assent to arbitration is explicitly stating on registration websites that the consumer is waiving the right to a jury trial; and waiver should not be hidden in terms and conditions but be conspicuous.
  • Key takeaway: Superior Court also arguably broadened the collateral order doctrine
    • The order was properly appealable as a collateral order because postponing review until final judgment may result in the irreparable loss of Plaintiffs’ claims.
  • Supreme Court review pending.

Santiago v. Philly Trampoline Park, LLC, 291 A.3d 1213 (Pa. Super. Ct. Mar. 21, 2023), appeal granted 394 A,3d 330 (Table), No. 96 EAL 2023 (Pa. Sept. 13, 2023) (per curiam) 

• Consolidated cases about waivers at trampoline parks.
• Issues: Can a parent waive a minor’s right to jury trial? Can one spouse bind another to arbitration?
• Key takeaway: Intermediate court said:
  • Sky Zone failed to meet its burden to show that the signatory spouses were the agents of the non-signing spouses.
  • The parent-child relationship did not empower the signatory parents to waive their minor children’s rights to have their claims resolved in a court of law.
• Pennsylvania Supreme Court review pending.

Liability Cases

Holland v. WM Operating, LLC, Nos. 3380 EDA 2024 & 4 EDA 2025 (Pa. Super. Ct)

• Concerns the Fair Share Act (the “Act”) and joint/several liability.
  • Dispute over whether the Act applies only to comparative negligence cases or also to strict liability.
  • Key takeaway: The portion of Spencer v. Johnson, 249 A.3d 529 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2021) (Panella, J., joined by McCaffery, J.) suggesting that the Act only applies to comparative negligence cases “is dicta,” and therefore, trial court properly molded the verdict to allocate liability between the defendants according to their pro rata share of negligence as determined by the jury.
  • Case pending on appeal; outcome could reshape liability allocation in Pennsylvania.

Sullivan v. Werner Co., 306 A.3d 846 (Pa. Dec. 22, 2023) 

• In strict products liability cases, product manufacturers frequently attempt to introduce evidence that the product complied with industry or government safety standards in defending its design. Most states allow them to do so.
• Key takeaway: In a three-judge plurality opinion, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed a decades-old doctrine preventing defendants from introducing evidence of compliance with industry and government standards in strict products liability cases.
• Both concurring and dissenting opinions.