CALL TOLL FREE: 855-833-3604  |  Payment Portal
Follow Zarwin Baum on Twitter Follow Zarwin Baum on Facebook Follow Zarwin Baum on YouTube Follow Zarwin Baum on LinkedIn Print Contact Us Office Locations

Career Biography

Timothy P. Mullin practices in a wide range of areas but primarily devotes his practice to litigation matters associated with products liability, construction, premises, transportation and liquor liability.  Many of Tim’s cases involve serious catastrophic injuries and wrongful death claims. He also handles appellate and commercial matters, including trademark, construction lien and petroleum litigation.
Tim joined Zarwin Baum in 2003 after practicing litigation at two other law firms in Philadelphia and New Jersey. Tim is an experienced litigator and practiced in the fields of insurance defense, products liability and toxic torts. In addition, Tim has argued cases before the appellate courts of Pennsylvania and New Jersey, including the landmark case in the Supreme Court of New Jersey, Hubbard v. Reed.
In law school, Tim was member of the Delaware Journal of Corporate Law, Widener University School of Law’s most prestigious and respected law review. He also served as a judicial intern for Chief Justice Norman E. Veasey of the Supreme Court of Delaware in 1998.
Tim was selected to "New Jersey Rising Stars" by New Jersey Monthly from 2006 to 2010.

Honors and Awards
• Law Review: Delaware Journal of Corporate Law
• Judicial Internship: Chief Justice Norman E. Veasey Supreme Court of Delaware
• Super Lawyers Rising Star 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009

Representative Matters

Michael v. Keubler et. al. Superior Court of New Jersey, Burlington County, Docket No. BUR-L-268-03
Defended a heavy equipment repair shop on product liability and negligence claims where plaintiff got his shirt stuck in an auger causing the amputation of plaintiff’s arm. Plaintiff alleged the repair shop was strictly liable pursuant to New Jersey’s Product Liability Act N.J.S.A. 2A:58C-8. Obtained summary judgment on behalf of the repair shop on the basis that it did not manufacture or sell the equipment involved in the incident and thus should not be subject to the New Jersey Product Liability Act N.J.S.A. 2A:58C-8. Defendant also obtained summary judgment on plaintiff’s negligence claims.
Roche v. Ugly Duckling Car Sales Inc. et al, Court of Common Pleas, Dauphin County, C.A., No. 5177-CV-2001-CV. Summary Judgment for Defendant. Affirmed on Appeal.
Defended against claims by the plaintiff who suffered catastrophic injuries when struck by a vehicle stolen a short time before the accident from an unfenced, unguarded and unprotected lot owned by the client. The Plaintiff alleged that the vehicle was left in this area with keys readily available to car thieves and that the defendant had improper security. Defendant was able to get summary judgment based on the fact that plaintiff's injuries were not a foreseeable consequence of a vehicle being stolen from defendant's premises, which was more than 30 miles away.
Quincy Mutual Insurance Co. v. Mane Stop et. al. Superior Court of New Jersey, Camden County, Docket No. CAM-L-1323-08; CAM-L-2465-08
Secured the dismissal of large property damage claim which arose out a fire in a hair salon located in a strip mall. Various experts opined that the fire originated in a dryer located in the hair salon. Defendant cleaned the dryer ducts and lint filter screen on the subject dryer. The total amount of damages that was claimed was in excess of $425,000. Motion for summary judgment was granted and the court held that defendant did not breach any duty of care it owed to the plaintiffs and its work was not the proximate cause of the fire.
Repko v. NG Food, Inc. d/b/a Fame Restaurant, Superior Court of New Jersey – Mercer County, Docket No. MER-L-1349-04; Affirmed by Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division
Plaintiff injured when she fell at a diner. Plaintiff believed that she tripped over a parking block located in a handicap space. Summary judgment granted to diner on the basis that during her deposition, plaintiff could not specifically identify that her foot made contact with the parking block. Summary judgment was affirmed on appeal.
Bennett, et al. v. Anapa’s Country House Restaurant, et al. Superior Court of New Jersey, Burlington County, Docket No. BUR-L-1836-09
Plaintiff injured in slip and fall at a restaurant. Plaintiff inured his back which required lumbar surgery. Insurance carrier denied coverage to restaurant on the basis that the policy had been canceled for non-payment of premium to a premium finance company. Summary judgment was granted to the insurance carrier on basis that coverage was properly denied and proper notice of cancellation of policy was provided to premium finance company although not itself provided to the insured.
Benyarko v. Peters, Superior Court of New Jersey, Essex County, Law Division, Docket No. ESX-L-6895-08
This case involved an intersectional accident where the defendant admitted to completing an unlawful left turn. Plaintiff alleged injuries to her shoulder and lower back and underwent a course of pain management injections into her lumbar spine. Plaintiff’s demand was $100,000. Settlement was obtained during jury selection for $40,000.
Tilton v. Goodall et. al., Superior Court of New Jersey, Ocean County, Law Division, Docket No. 2485-11; Appellate Docket No.  A-0069-14T1

Retail pharmaceutical company entered into a services agreement with a courier company to deliver medication and other store items to customers.  The courier company, through a third party, retained an independent contract driver to accomplish the deliveries. Plaintiff became involved with the delivery driver in a road rage incident.  The driver pointed a gun at the plaintiff.  Plaintiff alleged various physical and psychological injuries. Motion for summary judgment on behalf of both the retail pharmaceutical company and the courier company arguing that the driver was an independent contractor was granted. The Appellate Division upheld the summary judgment and agreed with Mr. Mullin’s arguments.

Defended a subcontractor in an action where plaintiff was killed when a roof collapsed while he was assisting in the construction of a house. Plaintiff was a subcontractor retained by the defendant to install flashing. Plaintiff alleged that the defendant failed to provide proper workplace safety measures. Settlement Demand: $7.5 million. Case Settled under a confidential settlement agreement with all defendants. The case was resolved with favorable settlement terms to the client with a lion share of the settlement absorbed by other parties.
Plaintiff injured on construction site of new home. Plaintiff alleged he slipped on a loose board that was located just inside the doorway to the house. Plaintiff suffered numerous injuries and required eight surgeries to address his alleged injuries including cervical and lumbar discectomies and fusions. Plaintiff’s settlement demand: $2 million. Summary judgment granted to defendant hardwood floor finisher as plaintiff could not present sufficient evidence that hardwood floor finisher was negligent.
PREMISES LIABILITY – Philadelphia County
Defended the owner of an apartment complex in an action where plaintiff was shot and killed as a result of a home invasion. Plaintiff alleged that the defendants were negligent for failing to provide adequate security, failure to maintain a parking gate which allowed access to the complex and failing to repair locks that allowed access to the complex and the apartment building where the plaintiff resided. Settlement demand: $3.5 million. Case Settled under a confidential settlement agreement for substantially less than plaintiff’s settlement demand.
TOXIC TORT CASE – Camden County
Defendant a bar on a claim that plaintiff was injured when a chemical reaction occurred while he was cleaning a toilet located in the bar. Plaintiff who worked for a cleaning company, claimed that bleach was placed into the toilet by bar employees and this caused a reaction with the cleaning solution he was using to clean the toilet. Plaintiff claimed he acquired reactive airways disease as a result of inhaling a chemical cloud containing hydrochloric acid. Plaintiff’s expert toxicologist and chemist opinions were undermined after deposing the expert and after conducting laboratory testing to recreate the chemical reaction. Plaintiff’s settlement demand: $900,000. Case settled for under six figures.
Defended trucking company and its driver in a sideswipe accident. The plaintiff alleged an injury to her neck and back. Plaintiff underwent neck surgery following the accident. Discovery and investigation revealed that plaintiff had a history of neck and back problems. Plaintiff’s demand $1 million. Case settled for $225,000.
Secured the dismissal of a declaratory judgment action. The underlying action involved a pedestrian who was struck by a vehicle. The pedestrian was seriously injured in the accident and underwent a two level lumbar fusion surgery. The vehicle was insured under a fleet policy but the driver of the vehicle was not listed as an approved driver on the policy. Therefore, the insurer invoked a “step down” clause which reduced the limits of the policy covering the striking vehicle to $15,000.
Plaintiff, the injured pedestrian, filed a declaratory judgment action seeking a declaration that the policy covering the vehicle that struck her had $100,000 limits and not the “step down” limits of $15,000. Motion to dismiss plaintiff’s declaratory judgment action was granted.
Plaintiff alleged she fell when walking toward a sightseeing boat in an area where a concrete bulkhead met boardwalk decking. Plaintiff stated that she was in the process of stepping down from the bulkhead area to the boardwalk when she was caused to fall due to the absence of an intermediate step and/or railing. She claimed that a railing was formerly located in the area of the incident but was removed prior to the incident It was undisputed that a railing was missing from the area of the incident and may have been missing for a period of at least 6 months prior to the plaintiff’s fall.
As a result of the fall, the plaintiff fractured her left hip which required an open reduction internal fixation surgical intervention involving the implementation of surgical screws and months of in patient rehabilitation. Plaintiff’s medical expenses were in excess of $140,000. Summary judgment granted on behalf of public entity and non-profit foundation.
Plaintiff was seriously injured when he leaned against a railing along a boardwalk. The railing gave way and the plaintiff fell 8-10 feet. Summary judgment obtained on behalf of the public entity on the basis that plaintiff could not prove that the existence of rust on the railing equated to the conclusion that the railing was structurally deficient or that the alleged rust represented a dangerous condition that had existed for such a period of time and was of such an obvious nature that the public entity should have discovered it.
Defended a restaurant against a claim where plaintiff allegedly slipped and fell on an icy sidewalk. Plaintiff alleged that the water that formed the ice came from the defendant restaurant when it washed its mats in an alleyway located near the sidewalk. Plaintiff suffered a serious ankle fracture. Plaintiff’s awarded $180,000 at non-binding arbitration. The defendant restaurant obtained summary judgment on the basis that neither the plaintiff nor any of the other defendants were able to prove that the ice that was formed was the result of the restaurant’s employees washing mats.
Plaintiff injured on a slip and fall on the boardwalk. Summary judgment granted to public entity on the basis that plaintiff could not identify the substance upon which he claimed he slipped and thus could not identify the alleged defective condition of the boardwalk.
Plaintiff alleged a trip and fall over an area where the sidewalk met an iron water meter pit. Defendant public entity granted summary judgment on the basis that public entity could not be held liable pursuant to the Tort Claims Act.
Plaintiff tripped and fell over a raised sidewalk and sustained injuries. Obtained summary judgment for a public entity pursuant to the New Jersey Tort Claims Act.
MOTOR VEHICLE – Monmouth County
Plaintiff was injured in a rear end collision. Plaintiff had back surgery following the accident. Plaintiff had a prior motor vehicle accident wherein she injured her lower back. Plaintiff demanded $175,000. Case settled for $65,000
MOTOR VEHICLE- Delaware County
Plaintiff was injured in a motor vehicle accident. Defendant driver, who was living with the defendant vehicle’s owner, obtained the keys to the vehicle while the defendant owner was sleeping. Summary judgment obtained on behalf of the vehicle owner on the basis that the defendant driver did not have permission to use the vehicle at the time of the incident.
MOTOR VEHICLE – Carbon County
Plaintiff injured in a motor vehicle accident with drunk driver who had rented vehicle from defendant. Summary judgment granted to defendant rental car company.
MOTOR VEHICLE – Monmouth County
Plaintiff, a passenger in defendant taxi cab, was injured in an intersectional motor vehicle accident. Defendant cab company and cab driver granted summary judgment as plaintiff was unable to provide sufficient evidence that cab company or its driver were negligent.
Nicoletti v. Star Installation, et. al. Superior Court of New Jersey, Atlantic County 
Plaintiffs alleged that the improper installation of a cable led to water infiltration in their basement which caused extensive property damage and mold in their basement.  Plaintiffs brought suit against a cable television installer.  The cable television installer brought Mr. Mullin’s satellite television company client into the case by way of third party complaint.  At trial, Mr. Mullin was able to effectively cross examine the plaintiffs and the representative from the cable television installer and forced them both to admit under oath that they had no concrete proof that it was the satellite television’s cable line which was improperly installed. Mr. Mullin further established through cross examination that the plaintiffs were present in the basement without any problems between the time period that the satellite television was installed in the home and the time period that cable television installer performed its work.  At the close of the cable installers’ case, the court granted Mr. Mullin motion for directed verdict.
Moeller v. Fleury et. al. Superior Court of New Jersey, Burlington County, Docket No. BUR-L-1969-12
Plaintiffs alleged that a pool company was vicariously liable for the actions of its employees after its employees allegedly stole $70,000 worth of jewelry from plaintiff’s home while servicing plaintiffs’ hot tub. Plaintiffs’ also alleged negligent hiring and negligent supervision of the pool company’s employees.  After discovery, Mr. Mullin filed a motion for summary judgment on all of plaintiffs’ claims.  With regard to the vicarious liability allegations, Mr. Mullin argued that even though it was clear that these two employees were agents of the pool company, their actions with regard to stealing the jewelry were outside the scope of their employment.   With regard to the negligent hiring claim Mr. Mullin argued that the pool company had no reason to know that the two employees had any alleged dangerous characteristics which would have made their actions foreseeable.  With regard to the negligent supervision claim, Mr. Mullin argued that the plaintiff could not show that the pool company knew or should have known of a reason or need to supervise the employees.  Motion for summary judgment granted.
NEGLIGENCE CASE – Drowning- Mercer County
Plaintiff, a 3 year boy, drowned in a residential pool after he gained access to the pool by exiting a sliding door located at the rear of the house.  Plaintiff alleged the pool installer was negligent.  Plaintiff’s expert, a well know aquatics expert, opined that the pool installer failed to inform the homeowners that a door alarm should have been placed on the sliding door of their home during installation of the pool as recommended by Consumer Products Safety Commission’s Guidelines for Home Pools.  After deposing plaintiff’s expert, the case settled on behalf of the pool installer for $25,000.

Recent Successes:

Timothy P. Mullin

P: 267.765.7345
F: 267.223.2466
Download V-Card

Mount Laurel, NJ
Philadelphia, PA

Automobile Insurance Coverage & Liability
Commercial Litigation
Construction Site Accident Liability
Insurance Coverage Law & Bad Faith Litigation
Liquor Liability
Premises and Habitational Liability
Products Liability
Trucking & Transportation
Pennsylvania 1998
New Jersey 1998
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Supreme Court of New Jersey
United States Court of Appeals; Third Circuit
United States District Court; Eastern District of Pennsylvania
United States District Court; District of New Jersey
Widener University School of Law, J.D. 1998
St. Joseph’s University, B.A. 1993
Villanova University, Diocesan Scholar 1988-1989
HOME CONTACT SITE MAP DISCLAIMER © 2021 Zarwin Baum DeVito Kaplan Schaer Toddy P.C.