Lamb McErlane PC partner Maureen M. McBride was recently quoted in Law360’s report on notable appellate cases in Pennsylvania.

Specifically, Maureen was asked to comment on the Superior Court’s decision in Spencer v. Johnson, Pa. Super. Ct. (March 18, 2021), which involved negligence claims by a pedestrian who sustained significant injuries when hit by a car. The car had been supplied by the driver’s wife’s employer. The jury found in favor of Plaintiff and apportioned liability against the driver, wife and the employer but not to any defendant in an amount 60% or greater. Plaintiff argued that the wife’s employer should be liable for the entire award (because the combined apportionment of the wife and the employer was greater than 60%) but the trial court found that the Fair Share Act did not permit such molding. Spencer attracted much attention from plaintiff and defense lawyers when, in reversing the trial court’s decision, the Superior Court suggested that the Fair Share Act, 42 Pa. C.S. § 7102, enacted ten years ago, may not apply unless there is a finding that the plaintiff was contributorily negligent. Maureen pointed out that while this portion of the Superior Court’s decision may be dicta, it nonetheless “leaves open the question of whether the Fair Share Act actually abolished joint and several liability.”

Maureen was also asked to comment on Hangey v. Husqvarna, Pa. Super. Ct. (March 8, 2021), a case involving proper venue in a civil case. After the trial court ruled that venue in Philadelphia was not proper because the defendant’s contacts did not satisfy the “quantity” prong of the venue analysis, an en banc panel of the Superior Court reversed. Finding that the trial court erred in relying too heavily on evidence of the percentage of the defendant’s business in Philadelphia, and that the overall percentage of revenue a company earns in a given county can no longer be considered dispositive in terms of deciding proper venue, the Court found that Defendant’s contacts satisfied the quantity prong of the venue test. Maureen explained how the Hangey decision, as it currently stands, “gives plaintiffs who are suing defendants with significant revenue a greater ability to choose their venue, whether that’s Philadelphia or elsewhere.”

At Lamb McErlane, Maureen is co-chair of the firm’s Appellate Department and member of Lamb McErlane’s Litigation Department and the Firm’s Executive Committee. She concentrates her practice on appellate law and commercial litigation in state and federal courts. She was recently appointed co-chair for the Pennsylvania Bar Association’s (PBA) Appellate Advocacy Committee.

Maureen is also a member of the Civil Procedural Rules Committee, which was established by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania in 1937. She served on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s Rules of Evidence Committee where she served as Chair from 2016-2018 and on the Board of the Lawyers’ Fund for Client Security from 2005-2009. In addition, she completed a six-year term as a Hearing Committee member serving the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.  In the community, Maureen recently completed a nine-year term on the Board of Friends Association for the Care and Protection of Children, a non-profit organization dedicated to helping homeless or near homeless families in Chester County stabilize their lives and find or maintain permanent housing.