Dennison v. The New Hope & Ivyland Railroad, et al.

Client: New Hope & Ivyland Railroad and Bucks County Railroad and Restoration Corp.

Court: Bucks County Court of Common Pleas

Trial Attorney: Christopher J. Hoare, Esq. and Christina M. Dewland, Esq.

**Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances**

Plaintiff was a 46 year old passenger who injured her left ankle, lower back, and knees while exiting the New Hope & Ivyland Railroad’s Halloween excursion train which was discharging its passengers at the station platform in New Hope, PA in 2017.  Plaintiff claimed  she sustained severe internal derangement of her left ankle, lumbar pain, and knee pain.  She underwent an open reduction and internal fixation surgery with hardware at Penn Medicine.  Plaintiff was seeking past and future medical care, economic loss, and pain and suffering.

Plaintiff claimed that the design and construction of the client’s train and station platform construction were unsafe and that there was no handicap ramp over the gap in the platform.  She also claimed that the defendant did not warn her that she was nearing the end of the train car.  The defense presented evidence that the client’s train, platform, and passenger operations complied with all ADA and railroad safety regulations including handicap ramps.  The defense also argued that Plaintiff failed to observe and step over the open and obvious gap between the platform and the train.

A jury of 8 jurors deliberated for 45 minutes before reaching a unanimous verdict that our client, New Hope & Ivyland Railroad and Bucks County Railroad and Restoration Corp., were not negligent.



Aleice Jeter v. Sam’s Club and Linden Route One Associates (A-2-21)

Client: New Jersey Food Council (amicus curiae in support of Sam’s Club)

Court: Supreme Court of New Jersey

Trial Attorney: Betsy G. Ramos, Esq. (prepared and argued our amici arguments before the NJ Supreme Court)

**Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances**

Supreme Court affirmed the lower court rulings in favor of Sam’s Club, ruling that sale of grapes in closed, sealed clamshell container not subject to Mode of Operation rule; rather, injured plaintiff who fell on grape on the floor would need to prove that Sam’s Club had actual or constructive notice of the grape on the floor to be able to pursue a claim for her injuries. Without such notice, the lawsuit was dismissed.

To view the case, please click here.


Capehart Scatchard Earns “Best Law Firms” Ranking for Litigation – Insurance

Capehart Scatchard is pleased to announce its “Best Law Firm” ranking in the area of Litigation – Insurance (Metro, Tier 3) on the 2021 list published by U.S. News & World Report and Best Lawyers®.

Law firms included on the list are recognized for professional excellence with consistently impressive ratings from clients and peers. To be eligible for a ranking, a firm must have at least one attorney who has been included in the current edition of Best Lawyers in America, which recognizes the top five percent of practicing lawyers in the United States.  Betsy Ramos (Litigation – Insurance) was recognized for this prestigious award in the 2021 edition.

“Best Law Firms” is published by Best Lawyers in partnership with U.S. News & World Report.  No aspect of this advertisement has been submitted to or approved by the Supreme Court of New Jersey.  For a description of the selection methodology please click here.

No aspect of this advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court of New Jersey.


Fisher v. Southampton Volunteer Fire Dept,. et al, docket no. 1:19-cv-00273-NLH-KMW

Client: Southampton Volunteer Fire Dept. and its fire chief

Court: United States District Court, District of New Jersey

Trial Attorney:  Betsy G. Ramos, Esq. and Benjamin Zieman, Esq. (former shareholder)

**Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances**

The plaintiff had contended that the fire department violated his constitutional rights for demolishing his home without notice or compensation to him. The home was demolished due to safety concerns and the inability to totally extinguish the fire after it suffered a partial collapse. The federal court judge found that, due to the emergent circumstances, the fire department did not violate the plaintiff’s constitutional rights and dismissed the lawsuit on summary judgment as to both the fire department and the fire chief.


Boyle v. Giannakis, et al., Docket No. MID-L-6571-18

Client: School Board Member Defendants

Court: Superior Court, Law Division, Civil Part, Middlesex County

Trial Attorney:  Cameron R. Morgan, Esq.

Brief Attorney: Cameron R. Morgan, Esq.

**Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances**

A member of the South Plainfield Board of Education, Deborah Boyle, and her husband, brought suit against four other current school board members, two former board members, and six other citizens of the South Plainfield community, alleging claims of harassment, gender based discrimination under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (NJLAD), terroristic threats, conspiracy, and loss of consortium.  Plaintiffs’ claims were based primarily on her allegations that one of the defendant school board members had attended meetings of the local middle school PTO of which Plaintiff was the president, sought to obtain financial records related to the organization, and expressed views which Plaintiff found harassing.  After being denied access to the PTO financial records, several of the defendants later ran for and were elected to the Board of Education, and the Board lawfully enacted a policy prohibiting current Board members from serving in positions of executive leadership in the local PTO, thereby causing Plaintiff to resign her presidency of that organization.  Plaintiff also alleged that several local citizens had made statements or engaged in conduct which she felt diminished her reputation in the local community.

After permitting Plaintiffs several opportunities to amend, on June 26, 2019, the trial court granted Defendants’ Third Motion to Dismiss in Lieu of an Answer, dismissing all six of the seven counts of the complaint applicable to the Board member defendants, in their entirety and with prejudice.  The court held that, even if a cause of action exists in New Jersey for civil harassment, plaintiffs’ claims could not survive a motion to dismiss, as they had failed to plead the necessary elements of a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress.  The court also dismissed Plaintiffs’ NJLAD claims, finding that Plaintiffs had failed to plead facts sufficient to show an “unlawful employment practice” or “unlawful discrimination,” within the meaning of the NJLAD, N.J.S.A. 10:5-5d, as there was no employer/employee relationship, and the conduct alleged was not within any of the twenty subsections of the NJLAD setting forth the various categories of unlawful discrimination pursuant to N.J.S.A. 10:5-12.  Claims of harassment against one of the citizens of the community were also dismissed with prejudice.