Non-Resident Drivers May Recover Tort Damages Despite Extended Michigan Use

November 2025 • Source: Gallagher Sharp LLP

By Sarah V. Beaubien

Frank Love Obtains Defense Verdict for Rideshare Driver Despite $1 Million Future Medical Cost Demand

November 2025 • Source: Zarwin Baum

Zarwin Baum’s client, a rideshare driver faced with a bodily injury claim from a passenger in another vehicle in a two-car motor vehicle accident and faced with a future Medical Cost Projection of nearly $1,000,000, won a defense verdict at trial in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas in front of Judge Vincent L. Johnson, with stellar representation from Shareholder Frank Love.

The Plaintiff alleged that she was injured in the accident when the vehicle in which she was a rear seat passenger was backed into by the client.  The client reversed his vehicle into the Plaintiff’s vehicle from a complete stop at a stoplight to allow a SEPTA bus to make a right turn onto the street where both vehicles were located. Plaintiff alleged that the client backed up unannounced and “smashed” into the front of her vehicle. There was extremely minor damage to the rear of the rideshare driver’s vehicle and a small crack in the front bumper of the vehicle Plaintiff was riding in. The client did not appear at trial, and for that reason, among others, Frank conceded negligence at trial.

Plaintiff did not seek emergency medical treatment, went to physical therapy for four months, and received a radiofrequency ablation to her neck. At trial, Plaintiff’s medical expert and cost projection expert testified that Plaintiff would need a litany of future medical treatments, including physical therapy, epidural steroid injections, repeat ablations, and surgical intervention.  The Medical Cost Projection report set her life expectancy at an additional 51 years; hence, the nearly $1,000,000 claim for future medical costs.

At trial, Frank cross-examined the Plaintiff with facts tending to impeach her credibility, including that Plaintiff stayed at a friend’s house for two days after the accident, her lawyers directed her medical care and sent her to all the doctors she treated with, and obtained an admission from Plaintiff that she already knew she was receiving the ablation before she ever saw or spoke to Dr. Burt. Frank argued that the radiofrequency ablation and any claim for future medical costs were against the weight of the evidence and not supported medically.

Frank elicited testimony from Plaintiff’s medical expert that she had only been seen once and declined to revise his testimony even faced with the fact that Plaintiff had not had any of the treatment included in his report over the preceding two and a half years. The medical expert also testified that after five years, the surgical options would continue to become less viable. Three years after the accident, no treating doctor even suggested surgical intervention.

Similarly, Frank elicited testimony from the Medical Cost Projection expert, a registered nurse, that she had no information about Plaintiff’s current medical condition and, despite being a nurse, was not concerned with obtaining more information about the Plaintiff or even speaking with her before testifying that he required $1,000,000 in future medical costs. The expert testimony was committed to video before the motions in limine were decided.

After deliberating for less than an hour, the jury fully agreed and found for the rideshare driver, concluding that Plaintiff did not prove that the driver’s conduct was a factual cause of Plaintiff’s claimed damages. The verdict indicates that the jury did not believe the inflated damages claims and likely also found Plaintiff’s testimony not credible. Given the amount of the claimed future medical costs, the absence of his client at trial, and conceding negligence, the verdict marks an outstanding outcome for the client.

Virginia's Election Results: What They Mean for Your Workplace Safety Compliance

November 2025 • Source: Willcox Savage, The Virginia OSHA Advocate

Democrats sweep Virginia's statewide offices, expand House majority

The Virginia election results will change the political leadership that shapes the Virginia Occupational Safety and Health (VOSH) priorities, rulemaking, and enforcement strategies within the federal framework. Here’s what to expect moving forward:

Governor-Elect Spanberger's Stance on Workplace Safety and Health

On Tuesday night, Democrats achieved a clean sweep in statewide elections in Virginia. Abigail Spanberger won the governor's race, Ghazala Hashmi was elected as lieutenant governor, and Jay Jones will serve as the next attorney general.

Political Appointees and the Safety and Health Codes Board

The Governor of Virginia appoints the Commissioner of the Department of Labor and Industry (DOLI) and members of the Safety and Health Codes Board, which is responsible for adopting and revoking VOSH standards. A change in administration will likely lead to a shift in regulatory philosophy and priorities surrounding workplace safety.

Governor-elect Abigail Spanberger’s campaign primarily focused on broader economic issues and her opposition to certain workforce policies from the Trump Administration. As a result, specific details about her plans for VOSH regulations remain unclear. However, as she prepares to take office in January 2026, a shift in the state's approach to occupational safety and health is anticipated. Spanberger's commitment to worker protection and fostering a safe, stable environment suggests a potential move toward enhanced VOSH enforcement and regulations compared to her predecessor.

Regulatory Approach and Enforcement

The number of inspections and the aggressiveness of enforcement can fluctuate based on the administration’s priorities and funding allocation for VOSH inspector positions. While VOSH generally follows federal penalty methodologies, the emphasis on pursuing maximum penalties can vary. In the event of a contested VOSH citation, the Virginia Attorney General’s office plays a pivotal role, providing legal support and assistance in enforcement actions, which are handled in Virginia’s circuit courts rather than through an administrative law judge system.

Federal Oversight

As a state plan approved and monitored by federal OSHA, VOSH must maintain effectiveness comparable to the federal program. Federal OSHA retains the right to oversee the Virginia plan and can intervene in areas where VOSH is unable to exercise jurisdiction effectively.

Legislative Changes

In addition to winning the statewide offices in the election, Democrats expanded their majority in the Virginia House of Delegates, increasing it from 51-49 to a projected 64-36. The Democrats further control the Senate in Virginia with a 21-19 majority. The legislature has the authority to propose new laws related to workplace safety legislation. The Governor can sign them into law or veto them.

For example, Virginia Governor Youngkin recently vetoed a bill (HB 1919) that would have required employers with 100 or more employees to develop and implement workplace violence prevention policies by January 1, 2027. He argued existing VOSH programs were sufficient. The proposed policy would have required comprehensive procedures for incident reporting, risk assessment, employee training, and documentation for a minimum of 5 years, with non-compliance resulting in civil penalties of up to $1,000 per violation. At the time, the General Assembly lacked the votes to override the Governor’s veto, killing the bill.

Key Takeaways

Employers need to stay informed about the changes in Virginia's political landscape. To proactively address potential regulatory and enforcement shifts, companies should regularly review their workplace safety and health policies and procedures. This includes improving training and compliance measures to prevent citations and penalties under the new administration.

Residential Homeowners Continue Avoiding Sidewalk Liability in New Jersey

October 2025 • Source: Zarwin Baum

The New Jersey Appellate Division has refused to extend sidewalk liability to homeowners of residential properties in a recent decision. In Gottsleben v. Annese, the plaintiff attempted to expand the principles of sidewalk liability for commercial property owners to residential property owners after slipping and falling on an icy public sidewalk in front of the defendants’ house. The defendants’ house was unoccupied at the time of the fall due to upgrades and renovations that were being made with the intent of moving in once complete. In order to overcome New Jersey’s limits of liability against residential property owners, the plaintiff argued that the defendants were liable for the sidewalk’s condition due to the profitable renovations that were being made. New Jersey law has imposed a longstanding duty on commercial property owners to keep public sidewalks in front of their premises safe. However, this liability has never been extended to residential property owners unless their conduct has been proven to worsen the sidewalk’s natural condition. 

The plaintiff contended that since the defendants’ property was vacant for renovation purposes, thus increasing the value of the home, it should be considered a commercial property for liability purposes. The Court refused to extend liability to residential homeowners simply because the property is unoccupied. Instead, the Court determined that the property was residential due to the owners’ intent to move in. Evidence showed that the owners had not acquired the house as an investment property to be improved and then sold, nor did they plan to lease the house to others.  The profitability of the renovations to the property did not change the property’s residential character. Therefore, the court held the defendants not liable for the injuries that the plaintiff sustained on the residential property’s sidewalk. 

In similar circumstances, it is crucial that insurance companies understand the purpose of their insured’s property expenditures. When a company insures a property owner who has invested in a property with the intent of selling or leasing it for profitability, the insured could have liability for injuries sustained by third parties on the property’s adjacent sidewalks. However, when insureds obtain insurance for a property in which they reside or intend to reside, liability for injuries to pedestrians on adjacent sidewalks is unlikely.  Homeowner insurers should obtain information regarding the intended use of a potential insured’s property prior to the commencement of coverage to adequately protect themselves from legal liability for third-party injuries.  And in the event of a claim, the residential nature of the insured property is still a strong defense to claims for injuries on adjacent sidewalks.