News Briefs
The Best Lawyers in America 2026 Includes 140 Wilson Elser Attorneys
August 21, 2025
John Donovan is the regional managing partner of the Philadelphia office. John is a trial lawyer who develops strong personal relationships with his clients based on his responsiveness and high accessibility. He concentrates his practice on the defense of premises liability claims in the security industry, product liability, transportation, toxic tort and construction law matters, and has tried dozens of cases to verdict in Pennsylvania and New Jersey. John was the designated liability catastrophic injury counsel for a major international insurance carrier for Pennsylvania and New Jersey, and continues to support that work in his role at Wilson Elser.
John has written about the spoliation of evidence defense for the Product Law and Liability Journal and has spoken on various topics for the Pennsylvania Bar Institute. He initiated the program on trial and pretrial issues at Temple University School of Law, where he continues as an adjunct faculty member. In the past John has taught at Villanova University School of Law and Rutgers School of Law as an adjunct faculty member.
John Donovan is the regional managing partner of the Philadelphia office. John is a trial lawyer who develops strong personal relationships with his clients based on his responsiveness and high accessibility. He concentrates his practice on the defense of premises liability claims in the security industry, product liability, transportation, toxic tort and construction law matters, and has tried dozens of cases to verdict in Pennsylvania and New Jersey. John was the designated liability catastrophic injury counsel for a major international insurance carrier for Pennsylvania and New Jersey, and continues to support that work in his role at Wilson Elser.
John has written about the spoliation of evidence defense for the Product Law and Liability Journal and has spoken on various topics for the Pennsylvania Bar Institute. He initiated the program on trial and pretrial issues at Temple University School of Law, where he continues as an adjunct faculty member. In the past John has taught at Villanova University School of Law and Rutgers School of Law as an adjunct faculty member.
John Donovan (Partner-Philadelphia, PA) and Joseph Gallo (Associate-Philadelphia, PA) obtained a favorable defense verdict in a product liability case following a six-day federal jury trial in the U.S. District Court, Middle District of Pennsylvania (Williamsport Division) on behalf of Wilson Elser’s client, a net and rope manufacturer. The plaintiffs, an assistant high school baseball coach and his wife, alleged that the coach permanently lost the use of his right eye and suffered psychological injuries after being struck by a batted ball during a baseball practice. The plaintiff claimed the L-screen batting net failed, allowing the ball to pass through it. John and Joe argued that the plaintiff knowingly used the net despite prior visible damage.
While the jury found our client’s product defective under strict liability, it also assigned the plaintiff 40% comparative negligence on the negligence claims. The damages ultimately awarded to the plaintiff were just $242,634, an amount significantly less than prior offers made during negotiations and less than 10 percent of the plaintiff’s lowest demand during litigation. The damages award was also significantly less than the outstanding workers’ compensation lien and outstanding and future medical bills. The plaintiff’s counsel filed post-trial motions on a variety of issues, including the low damage award. However, by Order, the court denied all the post-trial motions and ordered a hearing on the plaintiff’s counsel’s use of citations generated by “AI” in his post-trial brief.
John T. Donovan and Joseph Gallo
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, partners John Donovan and Caroline Vahey defended our stone quarry operator client in a case in which the plaintiff entered the client’s property riding a dirt bike when he struck a raised cable and suffered severe internal injuries requiring helicopter transport and emergency surgery. The plaintiff sued the quarry alleging that decades of use by dirt bike and ATV riders resulted in implied consent for entry and, with it, a common law duty to prevent concealed dangers such as the raised cable. We filed a Motion for Summary Judgment invoking a never-before-cited New Jersey statute (N.J.S.A. 39:3C-18) that immunizes property owners from claims by dirt bike, ATV and snowmobile riders who are injured on a landowner’s property without the landowner’s express consent to enter. The only exception preventing immunity is that the landowner must not have created the hazard willfully or maliciously. The Law Division agreed granting summary judgment and holding that the ATV Act immunized the quarry. The plaintiff appealed, and the New Jersey Appellate Division affirmed the decision in an opinion approved for publication as an issue of first impression. The court held that the ATV Act applied and that the cable was in place for a “legitimate business function.” The Court held that for the willful and malicious exception to apply, the quarry must have knowingly created a hazard to a dirt bike rider and “not simply the knowing creation of a hazard, in general. The decision sets binding precedent for future actions that will provide protection to the quarries operated by our client and any other property owners on whose land trespassers operate ATVs, dirt bikes and snowmobiles.
John T. Donovan and Caroline S. Vahey
John T. Donovan (Partner-Philadelphia, PA) and Hannah Rice (Associate-Philadelphia, PA) secured a defense verdict on behalf of their client, a prominent road contractor in the Philadelphia area, after a non-jury trial in the Court of Common Pleas, Bucks County, Pennsylvania. The plaintiff suffered significant head injuries and orthopedic injuries in a motorcycle accident in a work zone and sued the Commonwealth and the contractor that had milled and marked the road. The plaintiff’s demand never dropped below seven figures despite the judge admitting plaintiff’s blood alcohol level and the fact that he was not wearing a helmet. The plaintiff presented three experts and the defense presented four, including an expert in the area of work zone safety. It is expected that the plaintiff will appeal the court’s decision.
John T. Donovan