.

Jonathon E. Cross

Co-Chair, Amusements, Sports & Recreation Liability Practice

Portrait of Jonathon E. Cross

Jon focuses his practice on a wide range of casualty matters, with particular emphasis on amusements, sports and recreation liability claims. As a former athlete, Division-I college baseball coach, and camp owner, Jon brings a unique and comprehensive perspective to representing and defending sports, amusement, and recreation facility owners, coaches, instructors, youth athletic organizations, professional athletes, educational institutions, and college fraternities against various claims. His extensive background enables him to effectively navigate the complexities of defending against claims within these educational institutions and organizations, including those involving specific sports such as football, soccer, basketball, ice hockey, baseball, lacrosse, and track and field. He also has extensive experience defending a wide range of recreational and entertainment facilities, including trampoline parks, water parks, roller skating centers, amusement parks, zip line adventure courses, rock climbing wall centers, go-kart tracks, bowling alleys, indoor sports centers, golf courses, aquatic clubs, camps, martial arts studios, white water rafting companies, concert venues, sports stadiums, resorts, liquor establishments, and more.

With the emergence of sports related concussion claims, Jon advises and represents school districts, colleges, youth leagues, trainers, referees and recreational parks in claims that arise from failure to recognize a concussion and the failure to follow return-to-play protocol.  Further, Jon handles the catastrophic injury related sports and recreation claims sustained by concussions, the second impact syndrome, drownings, and other serious bodily injuries.

Jon also serves as Marshall Dennehey’s representative on the Insurance Law Global Sports and Recreation committee, where he presents and authors articles on emerging sports litigation topics.

On the professional liability side, Jon provides legal counsel and representation to contractors, architects and engineers, accountants, attorneys, insurance brokers, real estate brokers and financial advisors in a wide range of matters including legal malpractice, accounting malpractice, wrongful use of civil process, abuse of process, negligence and breach of contract claims.

Outside of his law practice, Jon serves on the Executive Board of the Richie Ashburn Foundation, which raises funds to provide over 19 free baseball camps and clinics yearly to children throughout the Philadelphia and suburban area.  He works with the Foundation to raise funds to support blind and visually impaired children to play "beep" baseball. 

Jon coached four seasons of Division-I baseball at the University of Pennsylvania. Previously, he coached for nine years at Germantown Academy, where he also was a member of the Board of Trustees (eight years) and served as chair of the sports/athletic committee.  Jon additionally was a head baseball coach at the William Penn Charter School in Philadelphia, and he formerly operated his own winter and summer baseball camps.  

    • Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law (J.D., 1996)
    • Lafayette College (B.A., 1993)
    • Pennsylvania, 1996
    • Pennsylvania Super Lawyers Rising Star (2006-2008, 2010-2011)
    • Germantown Academy, Fort Washington, PA, Board of Trustees (1999-2007)
    • Germantown Academy, Fort Washington, PA, Sports Committee Chair (1999-2007)
    • Pennsylvania Bar Association
    • Philadelphia Bar Association
    • Richie Ashburn-Harry Kalas Foundation, Executive Board Member (1998 - present)
    • Insurance Law Global - Sports and Recreation Committee, 2020- Present
    • International Amusement and Leisure Defense Association, Inc. (IALDA), Member
    • Sports and Entertainment Risk Management Alliance, (SERMA), Member
    • Information Gathering for New Claims and Prevention of Spoliation, 5th Annual ideal3 Summit, Minneapolis, MN, June 2026
    • Legal Roundtable, Amusement Industry Manufacturers and Suppliers (AIMS) Conference, Orlando, FL, January 15, 2026
    • Defensibility Strategies – Reduce Liability: Supervision & Documentation, International Adventure & Trampoline Park Association’s (IATP) Annual Conference, September 10, 2025
    • Litigation Basics - The Complaint, Marshall Dennehey Client Webinar, April 17, 2025
    • Legal Roundtable, Amusement Industry Manufacturers and Suppliers (AIMS) Conference, Orlando, FL, January 16, 2025
    • Health Club Claims, Marshall Dennehey Client Webinar, February 5, 2025
    • Florida Tort Reform, Marshall Dennehey Client Presentation, October 1, 2024
    • Concussion: Is the Long Ball Game Finally Finished? ILG 360º London Annual Conference 2023, March 15, 2023
    • Negligent Security Claims, Marshall Dennehey Client Presentation, January 25, 2023
    • Concussion in Sport - Causation and Risk Management in the Spotlight, Insurance Law Global Webinar, October 6, 2022
    • Concussion Litigation - It's Heading Your Way, Insurance Law Global Virtual Conference, March 26, 2021
    • From the NFL to Friday Night Lights...Tackling Concussion Litigation, Philadelphia Insurance Companies, October 4, 2017
    • The Present and Future of Concussion Litigation, Philadelphia Insurance Companies' Continuing Education Program, May 2017
    • Sports Tort Liability and Risk Management, University of Delaware, Sports & Facility Management Department, November 2016
    • What Insurance Professionals Should Know About Emerging Sports Liability Issues, A.M. Best Webinar, October 13, 2016
    • From the NFL to Friday Night Lights...Emerging Youth Sports Concussion Claims and Risk Management, Insurance Casualty Actuaries of New England, April 7, 2016
    • Athletic Risk Management and Concussion Litigation, University of Delaware, Sports & Facility Management Department, October 2015
    • Youth Sports Risk Management, New Jersey Recreation & Park Association's 2015 Annual Conference, Atlantic City, NJ, March 2015
    • Tackling Concussion Litigation, New Jersey Recreation & Park Association's 2015 Annual Conference, Atlantic City, NJ, March 2015
    • Youth Sports Risk Management, University of Delaware, Sports & Facility Management Department, March 2015
    • Tackling Concussion Litigation, University of Delaware, Sports & Facility Management Department, March 2015
    • Emerging Claims -- Youth Sports Concussion Litigation, Casualty Actuarial Society's Centennial Conference, New York, NY, December 2014
    • “‘No-duty’ Rule is Key to the Successful Defense of Sports Injury Lawsuits in Pennsylvania, U.S.A.”, The Sports Bulletin 3rd Edition, Insurance Law Global, August 2024
    • "Parents Are Precluded From Waiving Child's Rights to Jury Trial in Pennsylvania," The Sports Bulletin, 2nd Edition, January 2024, Insurance Law Global 
    • "Appellate decision in the Pennsylvania zipline case may permit general pleadings for recklessness and gross negligence, which may nullify the early effectiveness of the defense of waiver and release," The Sports Bulletin, 1st Edition 2023, Insurance Law Global, March 2023.
    • "Heads Up and Watch Out! Potential Liability for Traumatic Brain Injury Pursuant to the Safety in Youth Sports Act," Defense Digest, Vol. 23, No. 4, December 2017
    • "Boom! Lightning Liability at University Athletic Events," URMIA Journal, September 2015
    • “Fair Game? Legal Exposures Alter the Playing Field for Youth Sports,” Defense Digest, Vol. 21, No. 1, March 2015
    • "Cover All The Bases," Avoiding Youth Sports Injury Lawsuits, Camp Business Magazine, August 2014
    • "Fair Game? Legal Exposures Alter the Playing Field for Youth Sports," PropertyCasualty360.com, May 2014
    • "Court Recognizes Misconduct When Jurors Seek Out Their Own Expert Opinion," Defense Digest, Vol. 11, No. 2, June, 2005
    • "The Witness Immunity Doctrine Does Not Preclude Experts From Being Sued for Professional Malpractice," Professional Liability Underwriting Society, PLUS Journal, May 2000
    • "Obtaining Records With Fewer Headaches," (Co-Author), Defense Digest, Vol. 4, No. 6, 1998
    • "New Procedures Complicate Production of Documents By A Non-Party," Defense Digest, Vol. 3, No. 6, 1997
    • "Pennsylvania Superior Court Rules On Statute of Limitations For Defendants Who Leave The Commonwealth," Defense Digest, Vol. 3, No. 5, 1997
    • "Procedural Difficulties with New Discovery Rule",  MDWCG Legal Malpractice Handbook, October 1998
    • "Effect of Fiorantino on Legal Malpractice Claims for Breach of Contract", MDWCG Legal Malpractice Handbook, October 1998
    • "Legal Malpractice Defense that a Claim is Premature", MDWCG Legal Malpractice Handbook, 1999
    • "Continuous Representation Rule Still Not the Law in Pennsylvania", MDWCG Legal Malpractice Handbook, 1999
    • Success in defending trampoline parks in large loss lawsuits.
    • Success in defending indoor water parks. 
    • Success in defending indoor athletic recreation facility. 
    • Success in defending indoor rock-climbing facilities. 
    • Success in defending amusement parks.
    • Success in obtaining an defense verdict for major league baseball team and a former professional player.
    • Success in obtaining an order to dismiss a multi-million dollar gas station fire lawsuit.
    • Success in defending construction contractor for alleged OSHA violations. 
    • Success in defending a multi-million dollar lawsuit relating to defective fireworks.
    • Success in obtaining a dismissal of a lawsuit against a security guard company.
    • Success in handling multi-million dollar claims and obtaining favorable outcomes.
    • Success in obtaining a dismissal of a legal malpractice case pursuant to plaintiff's failure to comply with the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure.
    • Success in defending a golf club at trial for premises liability.
    • Success in litigating numerous cases involving school districts and universities involving claims for negligence, discrimination and athletic field liability.
    • Success in obtaining a jury verdict in favor of a major check cashing company.
    • Success in obtaining defense verdict in a wrongful use of civil proceedings claim.

Results

Summary Judgment Secured in a Case Involving a Trampoline Park Injury

We obtained summary judgment in a lawsuit arising from an injury suffered at an indoor trampoline park. During the deposition, the plaintiff admitted that there are inherent risks of engaging in trampoline activities, including the risk of being injured. Under the no-duty rule, a defendant owes no duty of care to warn, protect, or insure against risks which are common, frequent, expected and inherent in an activity. In the motion for summary judgment, it was argued that a trampoline park has no duty to protect patrons from the inherent risks of injury when jumping from a trampoline. The court opined that the no-duty rule was implicated and granted summary judgment in favor of all defendants.

Company Under Fire in Product Liability Suit Had No Duty to Install or Advise to Install New Valves

We were successful on a motion for summary judgment that was granted dismissing all claims against our client, an environmental compliance services and tank testing company, in a case where the plaintiff made an $8.75 million settlement demand. ​The plaintiffs, a minor mother and child, were at a gas station in Philadelphia when a vehicle inadvertently struck a fuel dispenser, knocking it over and causing a fire and explosion. The claims and cross-claims asserted against our client alleged it should have installed or advised the gas station owners to install a valve that would have prevented the fuel leakage that exacerbated the fire. We filed a summary judgment motion arguing that the claims and cross-claims asserted against our client went beyond the scope of the environmental compliance services it was hired to perform such that our client had no duty to either install or advise of installing different valves. The court granted our motion dismissing all claims and cross-claims against our client.

Thought Leadership

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

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.

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.