The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania rules that liability expert’s reports produced by a non-moving party in response to a motion for summary judgment must be considered in a light most favorable to the non-moving party.

The plaintiff was injured when the snow tube he was riding collided with a folded deceleration mat that had been placed at the bottom of the snow-tubing hill by an employee of the defendants. The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. With their response in opposition to the motion, the plaintiffs submitted two liability expert reports in which the experts opined that the use of the deceleration mat was an extreme departure from the ordinary standards of conduct by a snow tube operator and that the plaintiff’s collision with the folded mat caused his injuries. The trial court granted the defendants’ motion, which was affirmed by a majority panel of the Superior Court of Pennsylvania. While the trial court disregarded the expert reports, the Superior Court conducted its own review of these reports and concluded that the experts failed to establish the applicable standard of care.

On appeal, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania held that the Superior Court erred in affirming the trial court’s grant of the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Specifically, the Supreme Court found that the Superior Court erred in sua sponte rejecting the expert reports and in failing to review the reports in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, which is required by the summary judgment standard. The Supreme Court further held that the plaintiffs’ expert reports presented genuine issues of material fact, and the trial court erred in not considering the reports. As such, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

This case serves as a warning that arguments to a non-moving party’s expert report will likely not be considered by Pennsylvania courts at the motion for summary judgment stage but, rather, will likely need to be addressed later in motions for limine or Frye motions.

^{Case Law Alerts, 2nd Quarter, April 2021 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin 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 © 2021 Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.}