joe.gallo@wilsonelser.com

Download my vCard

Download my Bio

Joseph Gallo represents established businesses and individuals in all aspects of civil litigation. His practice focuses on the defense of claims related to general liability, professional liability, and construction law. Additionally, Joe is well-versed in counseling insurance carriers on matters related to complex bad faith disputes and resolving complicated, high-exposure matters through various alternative dispute resolution methods. He effectively handles all phases of civil litigation, including drafting and responding to pleadings, navigating intricate discovery, drafting and arguing dispositive motions, and preparing for trial and post-trial proceedings.

Prior to joining Wilson Elser, Joe worked for an established Philadelphia-based litigation defense firm, where he represented individuals, insurers, and commercial enterprises in complex litigation.

    Education

    • Delaware Law School (J.D., 2022)
    • Widener University (B.A. Finance, 2019)

    Bar Admissions

    • Pennsylvania

    Professional Affiliations

    Philadelphia Bar Association

Joseph Gallo

Donovan and Gallo Secure Favorable Defense Verdict in High-Stakes Product Liability Case

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