According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was stopped at a red light with another vehicle stopped behind it. The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant failed to stop for the traffic light and rear-ended the second vehicle, causing it to strike to the rear of the Plaintiff’s vehicle. The Plaintiff additionally alleged that, at the time of the accident, the Defendant was not looking at the roadway because she distracted while looking at and/or texting on her cell phone.
In
the Complaint, the Plaintiff alleged allegations of recklessness and sought an
award of punitive damages. The Defendants filed Preliminary Objections to the
Complaint asserting that the allegation of cell phone use alone, absent other
indicia of recklessness, was insufficient to support an award of punitive
damages.
The
court initially rejected the Plaintiff’s argument that the Defendants had
improperly attacked or challenged the legality of the punitive damages sought
in the Complaint by way of Preliminary Objections. The
court in this matter distinguished the Plaintiff’s reliance upon a case in
which a Defendant had utilized a demurrer to attack a claim of punitive
damages.
In
this Manning case, the Defendants
asserted Preliminary Objections on the basis of a failure of a pleading to
conform to law or rule of court or inclusion of scandalous or impertinent
matter...” under Pa.R.C.P. 1028(a)(2).
The
court found that the Defendant’s Preliminary Objections were appropriate given
that the Defendant was requesting the court to strike the allegations of
recklessness and the demand for punitive damages as improper due to the fact
that those claims were based upon allegations that only constituted negligence.
The
Manning court went on to address the
merits of the Preliminary Objections presented. After reviewing the general law pertaining
to punitive damages, the court confirmed that there remains “a lack of Pennsylvania
appellate case law in the context of distracted driving cases where the
tortfeasor is distracted by the use of a cellular phone at the time of the
accident.”
The
court did note that there were a number of trial court decisions from across
Pennsylvania regarding claims for punitive damages in cell phone cases. Based upon these trial court decisions, the Manning court concluded that the mere use of a cell phone absent
additional indicia of recklessness was not enough to sustain a claim for
punitive damages.
In
reviewing the Plaintiff’s Complaint, the note noted that the additional
allegations presented by the Plaintiff were simply boilerplate allegations that
the Defendant was inattentive and going too fast, all of which allegations the
court found only amounted to a classic claim of negligence, and not recklessness.
The
court in Manning additionally
rejected the Plaintiff’s presentation of a policy-based argument that texting
while driving should constitute per se recklessness. The court stated that,
while this argument maybe considered by a future appellate court, in the
absence of any such appellate guidance, the Manning court declined to accept the
Plaintiff’s argument in this regard.
I
send thanks to Attorney Andrew T. Rhoades of the Camphill, Pennsylvania office
of Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin for bringing this decision
to my attention.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.