Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Yowell, D. v. Norfolk Southern Railway Company
Citation: Not availableDocket: 3018 EDA 2017
Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania; June 12, 2018; Pennsylvania; State Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
Debra K. Yowell, as personal representative for the Estate of Ralph G. Yowell, Jr., appeals a decision by the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County that sustained preliminary objections from Norfolk Southern Railway Company, dismissing her wrongful death complaint with prejudice. Yowell filed the complaint under the Federal Employers Liability Act (FELA), alleging that her late husband developed multiple myeloma due to exposure to harmful substances during his employment with Norfolk, leading to his suffering and death. Norfolk's preliminary objections claimed that Yowell failed to establish personal jurisdiction, arguing that there were no facts showing that the controversy was related to Norfolk's contacts with Pennsylvania, or that such contacts met due process requirements for jurisdiction. In her response, Yowell contended that FELA grants Pennsylvania courts jurisdiction over such claims, asserted Norfolk conducted substantial business in the state, and claimed Norfolk had consented to jurisdiction by registering as a foreign corporation. After hearing arguments, the trial court ruled on August 2, 2017, that FELA does not grant Pennsylvania state courts personal jurisdiction over Norfolk, that Yowell did not establish either specific or general jurisdiction, and that she waived her consent argument due to insufficient legal analysis. Yowell timely appealed, challenging the trial court's ruling on jurisdiction. The appellate court reviews the trial court’s decision by accepting the facts in Yowell’s complaint as true and only upholds the dismissal if it is clear and free from doubt. Dismissal of Yowell's case was deemed appropriate as the legal facts presented did not support recovery. The review standard is for abuse of discretion or legal error, and since the dismissal occurred at the preliminary objections stage, the review is plenary. Yowell argued that Norfolk, by registering as a foreign corporation in Pennsylvania, consented to general personal jurisdiction under the long-arm statute. However, the trial court found that Yowell waived this argument due to a lack of analysis and legal citations, stating her one-sentence claim was insufficient. As a result, the court did not address the jurisdiction issue. On appeal, it was determined that Yowell’s failure to raise the jurisdiction argument adequately in the lower court resulted in waiver, affirming the trial court’s dismissal. Furthermore, Yowell did not allege that Norfolk was a foreign corporation registered in Pennsylvania, which was essential for her jurisdiction claim. The appellate review requires acceptance of the well-pleaded facts in Yowell's complaint; however, it contained no facts to support her consent argument. Therefore, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's order sustaining Norfolk’s preliminary objections and dismissing the complaint, with judgment entered on June 12, 2018.