1. The Law Office of Douglas T. Harris Jalen Ramsey Womens Jersey , Esquire v. Philadelphia Waterfront Partners, LP, 2008 PA Super 222 (September 22, 2008)

Holding: An appellant that invokes the ?colorable claim? standard for determining whether underlying Orders are collateral in nature, fails to satisfy this standard when it implicitly waived the claim of attorney client privilege pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 302(a) based upon counsel?s failure to invoke andor assert the privilege before the trial court. Because the Orders subject to appeal were not collateral in nature, the Court did not have jurisdiction to consider the merits of the appeals.

II. Causes of Action

A. Generally

1. Schmidt v. Boardman Co. Authentic Dante Fowler Jr Jersey , 2008 PA Super 203 (September 2, 2008)

Holding: Emphasizing that the tort of infliction of emotional distress is a distinct and separate cause of action in Pennsylvania, the Court ruled that a bystander who witnesses injury to a close relative can recover emotional distress damages when the injured person?s underlying cause of action is based on strict liability. The case also provides a detailed analysis of when a party is subject to liability under the product line exception to the general rule that a successor company does not incur the liability of the selling company.

B. Dog Bites

1. Underwood v. Wind, 2008 PA Super 158 (July 18, 2008)

Holding: In a dog bite case, jury instructions were proper that stated that: (1) the defendant was negligent per se because her dogs escaped from her property and were running free because the instructions advised jurors to consider whether the defendant?s explanation for the dogs? escape was reasonable; and Authentic Dawuane Smoot Jersey , (2) the dogs? actions could be considered by the jury in determining the dogs? dangerous propensities because the propensity to attack may be proven by a single incident inflicting severe injury or attack on a human being. The jury instructions constituted reversible error, however, when they failed to distinguish between the tenant ?keeper of the dog? and the landlord, because the court included the phrase ?or should have known? in addition to the correct standard, ?knows of the presence of a dangerous animal,? when instructing the jury on the standard of care applicable to an out of possession landlord.

C. Medical Malpractice

1. Toney v. Chester County Hospital Authentic Will Richardson Jersey , 2008 PA Super 268 (November 12, 2008)

Holding: A cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress is restricted to four factual scenarios: (1) situations where the defendant had a contractual or fiduciary duty toward the plaintiff; (2) the plaintiff was subjected to a physical impact; (3) the plaintiff was in a zone of danger, thereby reasonably experiencing a fear of impending physical injury; or (4) the plaintiff observed a tortious injury to a close relative. Thus, a Complaint alleging that a mother was advised that her unborn child was normal and healthy, but was instead born with profound physical deformities, states a cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress. Conversely Authentic DJ Chark Jersey , the Court concluded that the facts did not support a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The Court added that, as defined in Section 46 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts, a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress has never been explicitly recognized as a cause of action by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, although the Supreme Court has cited the section as setting forth the minimum elements necessary