Jane North, a partner at Deasey, Mahoney & Valentini recently won a defense verdict in Philadelphia County in the matter of Sanchez v. City of Philadelphia, July Term, 2006, No. 1971. Jury selection took place on Friday, March 14th, with trial commencing on Monday, March 17th. The plaintiff, German Sanchez, was a laborer for an excavation company, who was working on a water main reconstruction project in the Brewerytown section of Philadelphia. While excavating a ditch, a backhoe operator clipped a buried underground trolley track, causing it to swing out, strike the plaintiff in his lower back and pin him to the side of the ditch. Plaintiff claimed that he was permanently disabled from any type of work as a result of sustaining two herniated discs in his lumbar spine with resulting radiculopathy in his left leg. Plaintiff sued the City of Philadelphia, as the landowner, alleging that it had a duty to specifically warn its contractor that the buried underground trolley track was previously cut, making it more likely for the track to swing out if disturbed. Plaintiff's liability expert argued that the age of the rails was also a factor, since there was evidence that these trolley tracks were likely over 100 years old. Plaintiff also argued that the City should have required the buried track to be removed by its contractor, since it was in conflict with the water main reconstruction work. The City's defense was tendered to the contractor's insurer and Jane was defending the City pursuant to the contractor's contractual indemnity obligation.
Jane defended the case by arguing that Plaintiff's own negligence caused the accident, since he was the backhoe operator's signal man and he admitting during cross-examination that he had been briefly distracted during the excavation work. She further argued that the City could not be held liable for the acts of its independent contractors. The City hired a competent experienced contractor to do this work and did not control the manner or method by which the contractor did its work.
The City's exposure was capped at $500,000 under the sovereign immunity statute. Plaintiff's counsel before trial made a settlement demand of $450,000 and argued that because of a large workers' compensation lien of approximately $170,000, he could not take less than his demand. On behalf of the City, Jane offered $30,000. She further argued that plaintiff's workers compensation carrier could not assert a subrogation lien against the City based upon a little known 1993 amendment to the Workers' Compensation Act, which held that a workers' compensation carrier could not assert a right of subrogation against a sovereign entity. This 1993 amendment did not make its way into Purdons Statutes, except in a legislative history note. Therefore, Plaintiff's counsel and the workers compensation carrier took the position that it was not good law. However, Jane's associate, Michael Hinkle got the actual "Book of Laws", which is the official law of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, proving that the 1993 Amendment was the law of Pennsylvania. Purdons Statutes is merely an unofficial compilation of Pennsylvania laws. Therefore, the trial judge issued a pre-trial ruling accepting the City's argument that there was no valid workers' compensation lien. Despite this ruling, plaintiff's counsel never lowered his settlement demand.
On March 20th, the jury deliberated for just twenty minutes before finding no liability on the part of the City. Jane's associate, Michael Hinkle, was instrumental during the trial.
