.

Sara W. Mazzolla

Co-Chair, Amusements, Sports & Recreation

SWMazzolla@mdwcg.com

Portrait of Sara W. Mazzolla

As a shareholder in our Casualty Department and co-chair of the Amusement, Sports and Recreation Practice, Sara actively defends matters involving premises liability, amusements, sports and recreation, construction, automobile, and condominium/community association law. Sara also defends professional liability claims involving sports coaches and real estate professionals. Sara frequently provides seminars to NAFDMA, IAAPA, SERMA and RSA as well as to carriers and claims professionals.

In her career, Sara has defended Fortune 500 retailers, restaurant businesses, and major hospital networks in New Jersey premises liability actions. Sara routinely represents sports facilities, World and Olympic coaches, athletes, sports teams, and contractors in a wide array of matters.

Through her extensive background in the sport of figure skating, Sara provides a unique perspective to the defense of her sports-related clients. Sara is known for her dedication and consistency in achieving successful results for her clients. She is a former U.S. International Figure Skating Team Competitor, two-time U.S. National Figure Skating Championship Medalist (including winning a National Championship) and World Junior Team Member. Attributing many of her good qualities to her high level and successful participation in sports, Sara enjoys being a role model to young athletes and working with athletes to achieve their goals.

Sara received her juris doctor from Seton Hall University School of Law, where she defended juveniles through her work with the Seton Hall Law, Center for Social Justice, Juvenile Justice Law Clinic. During her time at Seton Hall Law, Sara externed for Judge Edwin H. Stern (on temporary assignment with the New Jersey Supreme Court) and Justice Virginia Long, and drafted memoranda on petitions for certification.

In conjunction with a pro bono organization, Partners for Women and Justice, Sara has successfully represented domestic violence victims in obtaining final restraining orders in New Jersey family court.

Sara is licensed to practice in New Jersey and New York.

    • Seton Hall University School of Law (J.D., 2012)
    • Drew University (B.A., 2002)
    • New Jersey, 2012
    • U.S. District Court District of New Jersey, 2012
    • New York, 2013
    • New Jersey Super Lawyers Rising Star (2021-2022)
      The Super Lawyers list is issued by Thomson Reuters. A description of the selection methodology can be found here. No aspect of this advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court of New Jersey.
    • American Bar Association
    • Defense Research Institute (Trucking Law)
    • Essex County Bar Association
    • Morris County Bar Association
    • New Jersey State Bar Association
    • New York State Bar Association
    • Partners for Women and Justice
    • Professional Skaters' Association
    • United States Figure Skating (Former Athletes Advisory Committee Member)
    • The International Amusement & Leisure Defense Association (IALDA), Vice President
    • Successfully obtained a no cause verdict following a one day non-jury trial (conducted virtually) in the Law Division of Hudson County for our client, a national trucking company. Plaintiff alleged the truck swerved into his lane causing property damage. We successfully argued that plaintiff’s identification of the trailer as belonging to our client was not dispositive on the issue of the identification of the company responsible for operation of the truck which was pulling the trailer at the time of the accident. The judge further found the police report was not admissible on the identification of the operator of the vehicle and also that regardless of identification, plaintiff failed to establish the operator was negligent.
    • Obtained summary judgment barring the application of the mode of operations charge in favor of major retailer.
    • Obtained a summary judgment on behalf of rock-climbing facility on the basis that waiver was enforceable and no reasonable jury could find that the client was grossly negligent based on client’s testimony of safety procedures, protocols and equipment in place at indoor rock-climbing facility.
    • Secured summary judgment for breach of contract and indemnification in a premises liability action.
    • Obtained Summary Judgment for a national concert promoter and public entity venue owner. Plaintiff purchased outdoor lawn seats for a concert at the PNC Bank Arts Center in Holmdel, New Jersey. After the show started it began to rain and plaintiff alleged the lawn area became slippery, wet and muddy. Plaintiff attempted to walk down the sloped lawn area towards the stage to buy her husband a beer. While doing so her foot got stuck in mud which formed with the rain and she suffered a severe ankle fracture which was surgically repaired.  The trial Judge dismissed the case on Summary Judgment and found plaintiff’s expert’s report to be unsupported. The court reasoned plaintiff could not present a claim of liability against the operator for failing to prevent the outdoor grass seating area from becoming wet and slippery when it rained. He also reasoned plaintiff could not prove the property was in a dangerous condition as defined by the New Jersey Tort Claims Act. We believe this decision will be helpful in defending other cases at the same venue involving similar facts.
    • Information Gathering for New Claims and Prevention of Spoliation, 5th Annual ideal3 Summit, Minneapolis, MN, June 2026
    • The Pros and Cons of Waivers in Your Rink, RSA Annual Conference, Las Vegas, NV, May 2026
    • Skating Industry Risk Management: Keeps the Good Times Rolling, RIMS Annual Conference, Philadelphia, PA, May 2026
    • Safety and Legal Prep, NAFDMA International Agritourism Association Convention & Expo, February 8, 2026
    • I’m Getting Sued. Now What? NAFDMA International Agritourism Association Convention & Expo, February 9, 2026
    • Risk Management and Understanding the Claims Process, NAFDMA International Agritourism Association Convention & Expo, February 10, 2025
    • Health Club Claims, Marshall Dennehey Client Webinar, February 5, 2025
    • Preparing A Claim for Trial, Marshall Dennehey Client Webinar, February 4, 2025
    • Roller Skating and Ice-Skating Management, SERMA, Webinar, December 17, 2024
    • Risk Management, Risk Shifting, & Corporate Formalities, NAFDMA International Agritourism Association, Webinar, July 11, 2024
    • Annual Anti-Discrimination and Harassment Training, Marshall Dennehey Client Webinar, May 18, 2023
    • Partners For Women In Justice

Results

View all

Summary Judgment Won in a Dog Bite Case in New Jersey

We secured summary judgment in a general liability case involving a dog bite. The plaintiff alleged a laceration to the face from a dog bite. The dog was owned by a co-defendant, not by our client, the landlord of the property where the bite occurred. There were no issues of material fact or proof to support a theory of liability under strict or ordinary negligence, and no behavioral signs of aggression were observed by the plaintiff or the property owner’s son who hosted the party where the plaintiff was bitten. We argued that the elements under both theories could not be met, and the judge agreed, granting summary judgment.

Summary Judgment for National Concert Promoter

We obtained summary judgment for a national concert promoter and public entity venue owner. The plaintiff purchased outdoor lawn seats for a concert at the PNC Bank Arts Center in Holmdel, New Jersey. After the show started, it began to rain, and the plaintiff alleged the lawn area became slippery, wet and muddy. The plaintiff attempted to walk down the sloped lawn toward the stage to buy her husband a beer. While doing so, her foot got stuck in mud which formed with the rain, and she suffered a severe ankle fracture that was surgically repaired. The trial judge dismissed the case on summary judgment and found the plaintiff’s expert’s report to be unsupported. The court reasoned the plaintiff could not present a claim of liability against the operator for failing to prevent the outdoor grassed seating area from becoming wet and slippery when it rained. He also reasoned the plaintiff could not prove the property was in a dangerous condition as defined by the New Jersey Tort Claims Act.

Thought Leadership

View all

Case Law Alerts

New Jersey Appellate Division Affirms Dismissal of Slip-and-Fall Suit at Concert Venue

July 1, 2025

The plaintiff claimed she was injured when she slipped and fell on a wet floor at a concert at the Prudential Center. The defendants argued there was no actual or constructive notice of a spill and, therefore, they breached no duty owed to the plaintiff.  The defendants presented uncontroverted evidence of inspection patrols of the area. The plaintiff argued that the defendants had directed her to her seat and had permitted open containers. However, the plaintiff presented no evidence of how long the liquid had been on the floor or its source; therefore, she was unable to establish her theories of liability under basic negligence and mode of operations. The mode of operations did not apply simply because there were open containers handed to customers. In this case, there was no self-service component established by the plaintiff.  In its de novo review, the New Jersey Appellate Division confirmed that the trial court’s ruling was correct and there was “no evidence of a liquid, where it came from, and if it was ever there, how long it had been on the floor.” The appellate panel’s decision summarily dismissed the plaintiff’s negligence claims as to the janitorial entities at the arena.    Case Law Alerts, 3rd Quarter, July 2025 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 © 2025 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.

Case Law Alerts

New Jersey Court Dismisses Baseball Team’s Fiduciary Duty Claim Against Board Member, Citing Lack of Individual Liability Under Florida Law

April 1, 2025

The New Jersey District Court dismissed the plaintiff’s breach of fiduciary duty claim, applying Florida law to determine that no cause of action existed against an individual board member of a not-for-profit entity. In this suit brought by a minor league baseball team, the Volcanoes, the court dismissed the plaintiff’s second amended complaint, which alleged a single claim for breach of fiduciary duty against an individual defendant, Goldklang, a member of the Board of Trustees.  While the suit arose out of the allegedly undermined negotiations impacting various entities in minor league baseball, the New Jersey District Court determined that a Rule 12(b)(6)—failure to state a claim—dismissal was appropriate when it applied Florida law to determine that there was no cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty against the individual board member. The statute imposed only a limited duty on a not-for-profit entity (the corporation).  The court determined there was no support for the allegation that “the directors of a not-for-profit corporation owe their members—rather than the corporation—fiduciary duties,” and dismissed the action against the individual board member.    Case Law Alerts, 2nd Quarter, April 2025 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.

Events

View all

Conference

RISKWORLD 2026

May 3-6, 2026

Philadelphia, PA

Sara W. Mazzolla and Francis X. Wickersham

Firm Highlights

Result

No-Cause Jury Verdict Secured in Wrongful Death Trial

We successfully obtained a no-cause jury verdict in a 13-day wrongful death trial. The decedent, a 59-year-old man, was admitted to the emergency room on February 15, 2019, with complaints of abdominal pain, decreased appetite, and constipation, despite the use of laxatives. The patient did not complain of any nausea, vomiting, or diarrhea. He had a significant medical history including diabetes, hypertension, prior coronary artery stenting, morbid obesity (with past gastric bypass surgery), longstanding ventral hernia, and back pain. A CT scan revealed multiple hernias and a potential closed-loop bowel obstruction, leading to a surgery consultation. Our client, an emergency general surgeon, interpreted that the patient did not have a closed loop or any significant obstruction and recommended non-surgical management. The patient was approved to have clear liquids, and had a vomiting incident shortly after, but our client was not notified. The patient was returned to NPO status, and after improving overnight, he was returned to “clears” and additional medical and renal consults were ordered. Our client did not receive any communications from the residents/nurses of any changes in the patient’s condition. On February 18, 2019, two rapid responses were called due to increased heart rate and vomiting. It is believed that the vomiting resulted in aspiration, causing sepsis, ultimately leading to the patient’s death. During the trial, the plaintiff’s sole medical expert highlighted imaging on the wrong hernia, which called into question all of his opinions in the case. We made key objections related to the expert testimony, limiting what the allegations were, and preventing new allegations from being made. After approximately two and a half hours of deliberating, the jury returned a no-cause verdict. 

Thought Leadership

The Enforceability of Online Arbitration Agreements Remains Unresolved in Pennsylvania, But the Pennsylvania Superior Court has Provided Substantive Guidance on the Issue

Key Points: The Pennsylvania Supreme Court confirms that an order compelling arbitration is not immediately appealable as collateral orders. The outcome of Chilutti II has generally left the substantive enforceability issues with browsewrap agreements unresolved in Pennsylvania. Until this issue is resolved by the Pennsylvania courts, companies operating in the Commonwealth should strive to ensure that their registration websites and/or application screens conspicuously present arbitration agreements in manners which ensure their users and consumers assent to the terms of the agreements by following the standards set forth in Chilutti I. Browsewrap agreements have been defined as agreements “‘in which a website offers terms that are disclosed only through a hyperlink and the user supposedly manifests assent to those terms simply by continuing to use the website,’ and typically do not require an electronic signature.” See, Cobb v. Tesla, Inc., 2026 WL 458470, at *1 n. 2 (Pa. Super. Feb. 18, 2026) (citation omitted). They are largely regarded as the “if you keep using this, you agree to everything buried in this link” terms embedded into almost every online agreement consumers and users sign before proceeding with purchases of goods and/or services. While consumers are generally aware of them, many almost never click on the link, nor read them in their entirety. This leaves many consumers and users ignorant of the terms and impact of such agreements. However, one’s ignorance of the otherwise neatly-tucked-away terms rarely renders them unenforceable. The issue of the enforceability of browsewrap agreements has been up for debate for some time in many jurisdictions, including Pennsylvania. Indeed, Pennsylvania had a brief grip on this issue for a period in time. Specifically, in 2023, an en banc Superior Court set forth heightened standards for companies to meet in order to secure assent and enforce browsewrap arbitration agreements. See Chilutti v. Uber Techs., Inc., 300 A.3d 430 (Pa.Super. 2023) (en banc) (“Chilutti I”) Chilutti I involved a husband and wife who sued Uber and its subsidiaries after the wife, a wheelchair bound passenger using Uber’s rideshare service, fell, struck her head, and lost consciousness due to her uber driver failing to provide a seatbelt and making an aggressive turn during the trip. The Chilutti’s filed a negligence lawsuit against Uber and its subsidiaries. In response, the defendants moved to compel arbitration, arguing that “the couple’s conduct on the company’s website and application — when they registered for the ridesharing service — signified that they agreed to be bound by the mandatory arbitration provision found in the hyperlinked terms and conditions.” The trial court granted the defendants’ petition and stayed the proceedings pending the results of arbitration, and the Chilutti’s appealed. On appeal, the Superior Court addressed two issues. First, it addressed the issue of whether it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal. A divided Superior Court determined that it did, with its basis for the holding being that the order from which the Chilutti’s appealed was a collateral order. Next, the Superior Court set out to address the merits of the Chilutti’s substantive claim. The Superior Court concluded that the parties lacked a valid agreement to arbitrate. Its rationale was that Uber’s website and application did not provide reasonably conspicuous notice of the terms to the Chiluttis. In reaching this decision, the en banc Superior Court held that browsewrap arbitration agreements are enforceable in Pennsylvania only if the registration website and application screens explicitly inform consumers that they are waiving the right to a jury trial, the registration process cannot be completed until the consumer is fully informed of this waiver, and, when the agreement is available via hyperlink, the waiver appears at the top of the first page of the terms in bold, capitalized text. Since the ruling, Pennsylvania courts have applied Chilutti I to determine if browsewrap agreements are enforceable.  For instance, the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas invoked Chilutti I to reject an agreement that lacked an express jury-trial waiver on the assent screen.  See Miller v. Festival Fun Parks, LLC, 92 WDA 2025 (C.P. Alleg. Cnty. Mar. 24, 2025). Similarly, the Superior Court has held that notice which failed to explicitly state the consumer was waiving a jury-trial right did not “me[e]t the strict burden set forth by our en banc Court in Chilutti I.” Pierce v. FloatMe Corp., 348 A.3d 1077, 1088 (Pa. Super. 2025). While the issue of enforceability of browsewrap agreements appeared to have been resolved by Chilutti I, Pennsylvania courts’ grip on this issue has been slackened by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s January 21, 2026, opinion in Chilutti II. See Chilutti v. Uber Techs., Inc., 349 A.3d 826 (Pa. 2026) (“Chilutti II”). Therein, the Supreme Court did not address the merits of the Chiluttis’ substantive claim, but rather the issue of whether the Superior Court had appellate jurisdiction to immediately review the orders staying litigation pending arbitration. The Court ultimately vacated the en banc opinion on jurisdictional grounds, holding that the Superior Court did not have appellate jurisdiction because the trial court’s order from which the Chiluttis appealed did not qualify as a collateral order and, thus, the Superior Court erred in holding to the contrary and lacked jurisdiction to entertain the merits” of the Chiluttis’ substantive claim. As such, Chilutti II has rendered Chilutti I nonbinding, and the issue of enforceability of online arbitration agreements remains unresolved. However, in light of the fact the Supreme Court did not address or comment on the merits of the Chiluttis’ appeal, Chilutti I is still meaningful. Specifically, it provides guidance as to the standards a company should strive to meet to ensure they have obtained users’ assent so that they are able to enforce online arbitration agreements. Additionally, it may serve as persuasive authority in judges’ evaluations of petitions and/or motions to compel browsewrap arbitration agreements until this particular issue is properly put before our appellate courts. Keanna works in our Pittsburgh, PA office. She can be reached at (412) 803-1174 or KASeabrooks@MDWCG.com.

Thought Leadership

Vendor Cyber Attack Compromises PII of More Than 3 Million Hunting and Fishing License Holders in Texas

The Texas Parks & Wildlife Department (TPWD) announced earlier this month that one of its vendors which handles the sale of state hunting and fishing licenses was the victim of a cybersecurity attack. The threat actor appears to have exfiltrated personal driver’s license information, passport numbers, email addresses, phone numbers and addresses of over 3 million hunting and fishing license holders.  The State Parks Department advised that the attack did not compromise social security numbers, dates of birth or financial information. Texas Cyber Command, the state’s new cybersecurity authority formed to protect critical infrastructure and coordinate threat responses across state and local government, reportedly assisted in detecting and containing the attack. TPWD has already set up free credit monitoring for those impacted through Kroll.  According to press reports, no specific group has yet been identified as the perpetrator of the theft. TPWD also advised that business has not been interrupted and license sales were continuing. This incident once again demonstrates that cybersecurity is only as strong as the weakest link in the supply chain. Businesses must prioritize security across their own environments and those of their vendors and contractors as well.

Result

Unanimous Verdict Obtained in a Medical Malpractice Matter in Bergen County, New Jersey

blue facade of a hospital sign against blue sky

Result

Defense Verdict in Complex Medical Malpractice Trial

Casey Alan Coyle Joins Marshall Dennehey's PA Appellate Practice as a Shareholder in Harrisburg and Philadelphia

News

Marshall Dennehey Expands Leading Pennsylvania Appellate Practice With Addition of Shareholder Casey Coyle

Congratulations to our 2026 Florida Super Lawyers & Rising Stars: Elizabeth Ferguson, A.C. Nash, Taylor Naughton, Sophia Philor, Amara Rodriguez

News

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2026 Florida Super Lawyers & Florida Rising Stars

News

Veteran Trial Attorney Joseph M. Toddy Joins Marshall Dennehey’s Casualty Department in Philadelphia

Result

Summary Judgment Secured, Preserving $750,000 in Coverage for Insured in Major Trucking Liability Dispute

Ray Freudiger and Michael A. Roberts (both of Cincinnati) successfully obtained summary judgment on behalf of their client in a coverage dispute arising from a May 19, 2022, motor vehicle accident. A permissive driver operated a box truck for an interstate trucking company and caused severe injuries to two tort victims. Prior to the accident, the insured had procured a commercial auto policy for the trucking company with stated limits of $1,000,000. Following the accident, the insurer initiated a declaratory judgment action asserting that only reduced bodily injury limits of $25,000/$50,000 applied and later counterclaimed, alleging it would not have insured the driver had he been properly submitted for approval under the policy. After extensive discovery, briefing, and oral argument, the court rejected the insurer’s attempt to shift responsibility for the $750,000 in coverage it was legally required to provide for permissive drivers under Ohio law, granting summary judgment in favor of the insured and preserving $750,000 in liability exposure.

Thought Leadership

Featured Conversations... Key Takeaways from A.M. Best’s Webinar on the Misuse Defense in Product Liability Claims, Featuring Michael Salvati

Michael Salvati, shareholder in our Philadelphia office, was a panelist for the April A.M. Best webinar, “The Misuse Defense: Strategic Approaches to Defending Product Liability Claims for Insurers.” During the program, Michael and his fellow panelists offered practical, jurisdiction‑specific guidance on how misuse and failure‑to‑warn theories intersect in modern product liability litigation. Michael emphasized the unique challenges these claims present—particularly in states like Pennsylvania, where evidentiary rules diverge sharply from those applied in many other jurisdictions. Failure to Warn as the “Flip Side” of Misuse Salvati explained that failure‑to‑warn allegations often arise as a direct counter to a misuse defense. As he noted, “If our misuse defense is that the plaintiff didn't use a product properly or safely, then the failure to warn claim is that we didn't tell them how to use it properly.” He emphasized that these claims can stem from either the absence of warnings or criticisms of existing warnings, such as insufficient specificity or lack of clarity about risks. Pennsylvania’s Unique Evidentiary Landscape One of Salvati’s most notable points was the stark difference in how Pennsylvania treats evidence of compliance with industry standards. He highlighted that Pennsylvania is “one of the only states…where that evidence is not admissible” in strict liability cases. Manufacturers cannot rely on compliance with ANSI, UL, ISO, or even federal safety standards to defend the product against a strict liability claim—because the focus is solely on the product itself, not the manufacturer’s conduct. Salvati acknowledged the challenge this creates for defense counsel and clients who expect such compliance to carry weight. Understanding the Three Defect Theories Salvati also walked through the three primary defect theories recognized in many jurisdictions: - Design defect – a flaw in the product’s intended design - Manufacturing defect – a deviation affecting a specific unit - Failure to warn – inadequate instructions or warnings He noted that warnings claims are increasingly significant and sometimes stand alone when design or manufacturing theories are weak. As he put it, plaintiffs often default to warnings claims because “the default position seems to be, ‘If I got hurt, there must be something wrong.’” Warranties and State‑by‑State Variations Salvati addressed how breach‑of‑warranty claims fit into the broader framework, explaining that implied warranties—such as merchantability—often overlap with strict liability in Pennsylvania. He emphasized the importance of understanding local nuances, as warranty law and admissibility rules vary widely across states. Looking Ahead: The Growing Importance of Warnings In his closing remarks, Salvati stressed that warnings should never be treated as an afterthought in product liability defense. He observed that warnings‑only claims are becoming more common and urged manufacturers and insurers to continually evaluate the clarity and completeness of their instructions and warnings. His takeaway: “We should always be talking about what are the instructions that come with our products…to bolster a misuse defense.” Listen to the complete webinar here: https://www3.ambest.com/conferences/events/eventregister.aspx?event_id=WEB1074.