Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Introduction

After spending recent years atop the Judicial Hellholes® list alongside the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, Pennsylvania’s highest court had a relatively quiet year. The Court strengthened the doctrine of forum non conveniens to help rein in forum shopping but restricted the availability of arbitration in certain cases. Several significant cases remain pending, and ATRF will continue to monitor whether the court maintains positive momentum — or slips back onto the Judicial Hellholes® list in 2026.

Commonsense Venue Decision

The doctrine of forum non conveniens permits a court to transfer a case to a more appropriate location when a plaintiff’s lawyer has chosen to file it in a county with little or no connection to the allegations, making it difficult for a party to present witnesses and evidence. This most often occurs when plaintiffs’ lawyers file lawsuits in Philadelphia but their clients live, and the accidents or injuries occurred, elsewhere. The doctrine is an important check on blatant forum shopping by plaintiffs’ attorneys, who prefer to litigate their cases in courts known for finding liability and returning big awards. It also protects the public’s interest in deciding local cases locally, and prevents burdening local jurors and courts with cases lacking a tie to their community. It is the only recourse available for defendants to get cases out of the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas.

This year, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court reinstated a lower court’s decision to transfer a major motorcoach accident case to Westmoreland County on forum non conveniens grounds, rejecting the Superior Court’s attempt to impose a new burdensome “key witness affidavit” requirement. The Court held that requiring defendants to identify specific witnesses and detail their trial testimony so early in litigation is an “unrealistic and excessively stringent burden” inconsistent with established precedent.

This case stems from a 2020 collision in Westmoreland County where a motorcoach bus, owned by Z&D Tour, rolled over to its side. While it blocked westbound lanes of highway travel, it was hit by two tractor trailers, one owned by FedEx and another by UPS. As a result, five people died and many were injured. Not only did the “incident trigger an enormous emergency response,” but the consolidated action involved four sets of plaintiffs and 66 potential witnesses. For reasons well-chronicled in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas section of the report, the plaintiffs’ lawyers chose to file their case in Philadelphia, more than 250 miles away from where the accident happened, as opposed to a Westmoreland County court.

The state Supreme Court emphasized that the Westmoreland forum is clearly more appropriate given the location of the crash, emergency response, investigation, and dozens of relevant witnesses — making this “not a close case.” It rejected the argument that modern technology eliminates burdens associated with travel, noting that remote testimony is not an adequate substitute for appearing in person absent extraordinary circumstances.

A concurrence by Justices Sallie Updyke Mundy and Daniel D. McCaffery agreed with the result but cautioned against placing too much emphasis on the sheer number of witnesses and travel distance, stressing that oppressiveness must be evaluated under the specific facts of each case.

The importance of this decision can’t be understated. As an amicus brief filed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce recognizes, Pennsylvania is facing severe shortages of doctors and first responders, particularly in rural communities, resulting in delayed access to care and worse health outcomes. The brief notes that “more than 80,000 Pennsylvanians live in areas that are experiencing a shortage of primary care physicians.” Given these strained resources, requiring essential medical and emergency personnel to travel across the state to testify would unnecessarily pull them away from critical duties when they are already in short supply.

Court Limits Application of Arbitration Agreements

A September 2025 Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling has called into question whether lawsuits against businesses that provide activities for children that involve injury risks can rely on agreements signed by parents to resolve potential claims.

Schultz v. Sky Zone, LLC was a consolidated appeal of two separate cases in which children were injured at a trampoline park’s facilities. In one case, a three-year-old was injured by an adult who entered a toddler-only area and jumped on her trampoline, throwing her off the trampoline. In the other case, a five-year-old was similarly injured when an adult, contrary to Sky Zone’s rules, jumped on the boy’s trampoline. In both instances, a parent had signed a form acknowledging risks of injury and agreeing to resolve claims through arbitration, rather than litigation. Nevertheless, parents filed lawsuits in Philadelphia. And, in both cases, the trial court found that the arbitration agreement was enforceable only against the parent who signed it.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that a non-signing parent cannot be compelled to arbitrate based solely on a marital or family relationship, as agency cannot be presumed from family ties alone. The Court upheld an intermediate appellate court’s finding that “marriage alone does not create an agency relationship.” In addition, the court found that a parent’s agreement cannot bind a minor child to arbitrate.

The Pennsylvania Association for Justice, which represents the state’s personal injury lawyers, predictably celebrated the ruling. Others are concerned, however, that businesses like trampoline parks, ski slopes, sports leagues, and others that provide activities for children with inherent risks commonly rely on such parent-signed agreements. Now, in Pennsylvania, businesses can no longer rely upon these agreements, at least with respect to resolving claims through arbitration. That could jeopardize the willingness of business to provide such services or lead to higher prices to cover the increased insurance costs that may result from more litigation.

Cases to Watch

Arbitration in the Crosshairs

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court is now considering the enforceability of arbitration in another context, rideshare services. In September 2025, the Court held oral arguments in a case about whether “digital arbitration agreements,” such as those on a website or smartphone application, “can be enforced under the same rules applicable to other contracts.”

In this case, a passenger sued Uber in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas after she was injured in an auto accident during a ride, despite having agreed to Uber’s terms and conditions requiring arbitration of claims. In July 2023, the full Pennsylvania Superior Court upheld a three-judge panel’s decision to invalidate Uber’s arbitration provision in its agreement. The Superior Court disregarded the Federal Arbitration Act, which prohibits states from disfavoring arbitration agreements, and held that a stricter burden of proof is necessary to ensure users understand they are waiving their right to a jury trial. This happened even after the Superior Court concluded that the plaintiff would have been bound by the other contractual provisions through ordinary application of contract law.

This decision calls into question the validity of countless arbitration agreements found in consumer contracts. Uber, like many companies, has included provisions like these in its terms and services under the expectation that the Federal Arbitration Act prohibits their disparate treatment. Further, the use of arbitration to settle consumer disputes is a benefit to businesses and consumers alike, providing a more efficient and less expensive alternative to litigation.

Limits on Damages in Cases Against State Agencies

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court will decide the future of the state’s statutory limit on damages in cases involving state agencies. Freilich v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority involves a pedestrian struck in a crosswalk by a public transit bus. The Transportation Authority admitted negligence and the parties agreed to a $7 million stipulated verdict, which included $6 million in noneconomic dam-ages. The trial court then decreased the award to $250,000 in compliance with state law, which permits limited recovery against the state as it is otherwise entitled to sovereign immunity. While applying the law, Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas Judge James Crumlish did not hide his feelings about the cap, calling it “profoundly unfair if not unconscionable” as applied in that case, but followed binding precedent and applied the law.

The plaintiff has challenged the constitutionality of the cap, arguing that the limit, which the legislature has not increased in many years, violates her right to a remedy and right to jury trial under the state constitution. Such a ruling would take a policy decision that protects taxpayers out of the hands of the legislature, which can choose to adjust the amount. In fact, when legislators proposed a bill that would have quadrupled the cap for cases involving catastrophic injuries or death in the 2023-2024 session, plaintiffs’ lawyers opposed the change as insufficient and too low.

Should the Pennsylvania Supreme Court invalidate the law, government agencies may be exposed unpredictable and potentially limitless liability. The court heard oral arguments in March 2025 and is expected to rule soon.