Christian A. Weimann

Obtained a defense verdict after a masked and socially distanced two day trial in Bucks County in favor of an automotive manufacturer. Approximately one year after purchasing a new vehicle, the plaintiff complained several times that the Start/Stop function shuts off and does not restart. The manufacturer identified the problem and was working on a solution. Meanwhile, the dealership told the plaintiff to turn off the Start/Stop function until a software update came out. The software update came out in early May of 2019, less than 80 days after the plaintiff’s first complaint. The plaintiff asserted claims under the Pennsylvania Automobile Lemon Law, Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, Uniform Commercial Code, and the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law that the vehicle’s repair history was all related to an intermittent and still unrepaired Start/Stop issue with the car. The defense successfully proved through witness and expert testimony that the vehicle’s mechanical problems were fixed in a timely fashion. The repair work done by the dealership under the warranty was effective, and reliable, and the problem was permanently repaired. After trial, the judge requested each side provide a memorandum with findings of fact and closing arguments. Upon review of same, a ruling was issued in our client’s favor.

Obtained summary judgment in Delaware County, Pennsylvania for a slip and fall during an active snowstorm case.  Plaintiff alleged after finishing work, she fell in snow during an active snowstorm and was injured while walking in the parking lot toward her car.  Plaintiff's own admission, as well as cell phone video footage taken by a co-worker, confirmed that she fell during an active snowstorm.  Plaintiff went to work that day wearing snow boots because she knew the weather was supposed to turn bad later that day. Plaintiff admitted that some plowing had already been performed by the time she  left work.  The court found that the meteorological evidence, cell phone video footage taken by Plaintiff's co-worker, and Plaintiff's own admission all triggered the application of the "hills and ridges" doctrine to this case. Pursuant to this doctrine, the defendant did not have an absolute duty to clear the premises of ice and snow while the snowstorm was occurring.  Moreover, intervention through snow removal processes does not necessarily bar application of the hills and ridges doctrine.  Where a landowner takes steps during the course of a snow event, he does not divest himself of the protections afforded to him under the hills and ridges doctrine.