PA Superior Court Reaffirms Need for Expert Testimony in Support of Claim for Corporate Negligence and Provides Further Clarity as to ‘Obvious Negligence.’

The Superior Court of Pennsylvania found that expert testimony was still required in a matter involving an alleged defective toilet provided to a patient post surgery that broke and resulted in a fall and injuries to the patient. 

The court specifically stated that this was not a case in which negligence was so obvious that expert testimony was not required and, in turn, granted summary judgment for failure to produce expert reports supporting the claims. The court was not compelled by the patient’s argument—a claim for corporate negligence based on the provision of a defective toilet to a post-surgical patient which broke and resulted in a fall—does not require expert testimony. 

The court outlined that questions which required expert testimony regarding adequate and appropriate supervision, reasonable care to maintain facilities and equipment, and adequate training, among others, still existed. As such, summary judgment was proper for failing to produce experts in support of the patient’s claim. 

_{Case Law Alerts, 4th Quarter, October 2024 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. Copyright © 2024 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.}