Brittany E. Bakshi, General Attorney in Camp Hill, Pennsylvania

Brittany has developed valuable litigation experience in several defense practice areas including personal injury, automobile liability, premises liability, property damage and products liability as a member of the Casualty Department. Through her practice, Brittany has represented a variety of clients, including contractors, non-profit organizations, corporations, small businesses and individuals.

Within her diverse practice, Brittany has taken cases to trial, arbitration, and magistrate court and obtained favorable results at all levels. Moreover, she has resolved numerous cases through effective settlement negotiations and mediation. Brittany has represented clients in both state and federal courts.

Brittany earned her juris doctor in 2011 from The University of Pittsburgh School of Law. Brittany attended Franklin & Marshall College where she received her Bachelor of Arts degree in Psychology in 2008.

Honors & Awards

•The Best Lawyers in America, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants (2026)
•The Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants (2024-2025)
•Pennsylvania Super Lawyers Rising Star (2019-2026)

Results

Summary Judgment Obtained in a Pennsylvania Trip-and-Fall Case

We obtained summary judgment for residential renters in a trip-and-fall case. The plaintiff tripped and fell on a set of porch steps at our clients’ home while attending a barbeque, breaking her ankle. She brought claims against the homeowner. The homeowner then joined our clients, asserting claims of negligence and contractual indemnity under the lease agreement. During her deposition, the plaintiff testified that she was familiar with the poor condition of the steps, had spoken with the renters about the steps prior to her fall, and witnessed two people, an adult and a child, trip on the steps during the same barbeque event. The homeowner also testified at his deposition that it was his responsibility to repair and maintain the subject stairs. We argued that our clients were not required to indemnify the homeowners under the Perri-Ruzzi rule, and that they owed no duty to the plaintiff, a licensee, as she knew of the condition of the steps and the risks involved in using them. The court agreed and dismissed all claims against the clients.

Summary Judgment Secured in Slip and Fall Case

We obtained summary judgment on behalf of a university in a slip and fall case. The plaintiff, a university student, slipped and fell during an active winter storm as she was walking from one campus building to another. Discovery showed that the plaintiff received an emergency alert from the university warning of potentially icy conditions prior to exiting the building and that freezing rain was still falling as the plaintiff was walking. We argued, and the court agreed, that the university owed no duty to the plaintiff to protect against general slippery conditions or to pretreat sidewalks prior to, during or immediately after the storm.

Thought Leadership

Case Law Alerts

Pennsylvania Trial Court Holds Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint in Motor Vehicle Injury Case Met Specificity Requirements Under Pa. R.C.P. 1028(a)(3)

October 1, 2025

The plaintiff alleged in their amended complaint that they suffered “other injuries, the extent of which is not yet known.” The defendant raised a specificity objection pursuant to Pa. R.C.P 1028(a)(3). Upon reviewing the record, the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure and citing substantive state case law, the Washington County Court of Common Pleas noted that in order to determine whether an allegation in a pleading contains the appropriate level of specificity, it looks not only to that specific allegation, but also that allegation in the context of other allegations in the complaint. Here, after considering all of the allegations of the amended complaint, the court held that the plaintiff sufficiently complied with the pleading rules. More specifically, the court pointed out that the plaintiff had specifically detailed at least 13 allegations of negligence, identified specific injuries to identified body parts, and detailed subjective symptoms along with objective signs of those injuries. Further, the court held that the plaintiff was not required to plead evidentiary facts. In support of this holding, it highlighted that physical injuries, medical expenses and lost wages may be plead generally. Lastly, the court addressed the defendant’s argument that he should not be put in the position of learning of a new injury claim at trial. The court dismissed this argument by pointing out that discovery and pre-trial statement requirements will protect defendants from being ambushed by new injury claims at trial. The court overruled the defendant’s preliminary objection that the plaintiff’s amended complaint lacked the requisite level of specificity under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Case Law Alerts, 4th Quarter, October 2025 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. Copyright 2025 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.

Case Law Alerts

Luzerne County Court Denies Amendment to Add Punitive Damages for Post-Incident Conduct in Dog-Bite Case

October 1, 2025

The plaintiff sought the amend her complaint to add a claim of negligence per se, to add a theory of joint and several liability against both defendants and, most notably, to include a claim for punitive damages for post-incident conduct by the defendants relative to the dog-bite incident. The Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas denied the plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend the complaint, holding that punitive damages are not available for tortfeasor’s post-incident conduct. In support of this holding, it cited to substantive state case law, which held that a fact-finder may impose punitive damages for torts, as opposed to any post-incident conduct, and that one must look to the act itself together with all circumstances, including the motives of the wrongdoers and the relationships between the parties when imposing punitive damages. Case Law Alerts, 4th Quarter, October 2025 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. Copyright 2025 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.

News

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2026 Pennsylvania Super Lawyers and Rising Stars Honorees

May 22, 2026

98 Marshall Dennehey Attorneys Recognized in the 2026 Editions of The Best Lawyers in America and the Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch in America

August 20, 2025