In the case of Baez v. Rosenberry, No. 19-CV-0131
(C.P. Union Co. July 31, 2019 Hudock,
P.J.), the court overruled Preliminary Objections of a Defendant to allegations
of distracting driving, reckless conduct, as well as with respect to a claim
for punitive damages.
According to the Opinion, the mirror of the Defendant’s
vehicle struck the pedestrian Plaintiff while the Defendant’s vehicle was
passing the Plaintiff as the Plaintiff was walking on the right shoulder of a
highway.
The court allowed the allegations pertaining to reckless conduct and punitive damages to stand after noting that
the Complaint portrayed the Defendant as a distracted driver who failed to
remain on the road, was fatigued, was traveling too fast for conditions, and
who struck a pedestrian.
Based upon these allegations, the Court noted that it "may infer
that Defendant’s vehicle continued to travel forward with the Defendant unaware
of the roadway in front of him.” See
Op. at p. 3. Judge Hudock cited to case law imposing a duty of motorists to look in the direction in which the car is
proceeding and to keep the car under proper control so as to avoid dangers to
pedestrians and others who may be in front of a motorist on the roadway. The Court also noted that failure to meet these duties is a flagrant violation of a duty.
Overall, the court found that the allegations at issue were
sufficient to support the claims of reckless conduct and to possibly impose
punitive damages. The court emphasized
that it was not deciding the merit of the claims presented but only that the
Plaintiff had pled sufficient facts which, if proven, would establish a right
to relief. As such, the Preliminary
Objections of the Defendant were overruled.
Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click
this LINK.
I send thanks to Attorney Scott B. Cooper of the Harrisburg,
Pennsylvania law office of Schmidt Kramer for bringing this case to my
attention.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.