Philadelphia partner Raphaella Poteau secured a critical defense win at an early stage in a negligence and product liability matter involving the tragic death of a college student at Penn State. The decedent fell through an access hatch in a garbage chute at the Beaver Terrace Condominium in State College, Pennsylvania. Her estate filed a wrongful death and product liability action in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas against multiple defendants, including condominium entities, property owners, and product manufacturer, including our client, the manufacturer of the trash chute access hatch.
The defendants objected to venue, arguing the case belonged in Centre County, where the incident occurred. After months of venue-related discovery, the trial court sustained the objections and transferred the case.
On appeal, the plaintiff argued that defendants Buchanan Company and Chute Source’s sporadic online sales and limited transaction volume were sufficient to establish venue in Philadelphia County under Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 2179. The plaintiff also asserted that Chute Source’s relationship with a Philadelphia vendor, which had falsely claimed to be Chute Source’s exclusive distributor, supported venue in Philadelphia.
The Pennsylvania Superior Court rejected these arguments, holding that the sales were too minimal and inconsistent to establish venue. With respect to Chute Source, the Court explained that the venue test considers only the defendant’s acts, not the actions or representations of a third-party vendor. The Court emphasized that trial courts have broad discretion in determining whether a defendant “regularly conducts business” under Rule 2179 and clarified that isolated or incidental sales are insufficient. Rather, venue requires evidence of continuing, regular, and habitual business activities in the plaintiff’s chosen county. The plaintiff also argued for remand to allow more venue discovery, but the Superior Court held that he had waived that issue by failing to request additional time or hearings in the trial court.
This matter marked the first significant test of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s November 2023 Hangey decision, which broadened the framework for analyzing venue and made it easier for plaintiffs to pursue cases in counties with only minimal connections. The Superior Court’s affirmation of the venue transfer represents an important post-Hangey victory for defendants seeking to ensure that cases are litigated in the county with the most direct connection to the underlying events.
