In the case of Clark v. Beers, No. 2019-GN-1484 (C.P.
Blair Co. Aug. 13, 2019 Bernard, P.J.), the court granted a Defendant’s
Preliminary Objections seeking the dismissal of allegations of recklessness in
a motor vehicle versus pedestrian litigation but allowed the Plaintiff
leave to amend the Complaint to add additional facts.
According to the Opinion, the accident occurred when the
Plaintiff was pushing a shopping cart as she exited a market and was walking in
the parking lot. The Defendant was backing his vehicle from a parking space and
contacted the Plaintiff with the rear of his vehicle, allegedly causing the
Plaintiff to fall down and sustain physical injuries.
In the Complaint, the Plaintiff asserted allegations of
“negligent and reckless” conduct.
The court noted that these allegations were pled
“as if they are indistinguishable” and that “[i]t may well be that Plaintiff
only means to assert an action in negligence.”
The court in the Clark case went on to hold that, if the
Plaintiff intended to pursue a theory of reckless conduct on the part of the
Defendant then specific factual allegations supporting claims beyond mere
negligence must be asserted.
Given that no such facts were pled in this Complaint, the
court granted Preliminary Objections seeking the dismissal of the claims of
reckless conduct. However, as noted, the
court granted the Plaintiff an opportunity to amend the Complaint to either add
specific facts in support of a claim for reckless conduct or to eliminate the
reference to reckless conduct from the Complaint altogether.
Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click
this LINK.
UPDATE: The trial court reversed itself when it was presented with a Motion for Reconsideration by the Plaintiff. As such, the court found that the allegations in the Plaintiff's Complaint could support a claim of recklessness and the claim was therefore allowed to proceed into discovery. Click HERE to review the Court's Order granting the Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration.
UPDATE: The trial court reversed itself when it was presented with a Motion for Reconsideration by the Plaintiff. As such, the court found that the allegations in the Plaintiff's Complaint could support a claim of recklessness and the claim was therefore allowed to proceed into discovery. Click HERE to review the Court's Order granting the Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration.
I send thanks to Attorney Brad E. Haas of the Pittsburgh
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.