According to the Opinion, a Lackawanna County Plaintiff was undergoing in-patient treatment at a Wyoming County facility when he fractured his ankle during recreational activities on the Plaintiff’s sports field.
The court addressed various Preliminary Objections filed by the Defendant clinic and the Defendant landowner.
With regard to one of the Preliminary Objections, the court denied the objection to the allegations of recklessness and continued to trend of cases holding that recklessness can be pled in any case where negligence is alleged. Judge Nealon again referenced the rationale that, given that recklessness is an allegation as to a state of mind, under Pa.R.C.P. 1019 and appellate precedent reviewing the same, allegations of recklessness are permitted to be generally pled under Pa. R.C.P. 1019.
As part of its analysis of this issue, the court pointed, in part, to the article entitled "Pleading for Clarity: Appellate Guidance Needed to Settle the Issue of the Proper Pleading of Recklessness in Personal Injury Matters" by Daniel E. Cummins, 93 Pa. B.A.Q. 32 (Jan. 2022).
The court also separately allowed the claims of punitive damages to proceed after finding that sufficient facts were pled to support that claim..
With regards to other issues raised, the court found that, given that the patient had charged the owner of the premises with misfeasance for personally participating in the tortious activity, the Plaintiff did not need to pierce the clinic’s corporate veil in order to sue the owner.
The court also separately allowed the claims of punitive damages to proceed after finding that sufficient facts were pled to support that claim..
 |
| Judge Terrence R. Nealon Lackawanna County |
With regards to other issues raised, the court found that, given that the patient had charged the owner of the premises with misfeasance for personally participating in the tortious activity, the Plaintiff did not need to pierce the clinic’s corporate veil in order to sue the owner.
Rather, the court found that the Plaintiff may instead impose the individual liability on the owner under a participation theory where it is alleged that the owner of the premises allegedly directed the drilling and digging of the various holes in that field as part of a proposed facility expansion. It was also noted that the landowner had also encouraged the clinic’s patient to participate in recreational activities on that field even though the owner knew that other patients had been previously injured due to the numerous holes the field that were allegedly concealed by overgrown grass.
Lastly, the trial court rejected any venue challenge by the Defendants after finding that the venue in Lackawanna County was proper as to the owner given that the owner resided in Lackawanna County and was served with original process in Lackawanna County. Judge Nealon also reasoned the venue was proper as to all Defendants where the patient was asserting joint and several liability against the clinic and the owner. Accordingly, the court found that the venue was proper as against both Defendants under Pa. R.C.P. 1006(c).
Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.
Lastly, the trial court rejected any venue challenge by the Defendants after finding that the venue in Lackawanna County was proper as to the owner given that the owner resided in Lackawanna County and was served with original process in Lackawanna County. Judge Nealon also reasoned the venue was proper as to all Defendants where the patient was asserting joint and several liability against the clinic and the owner. Accordingly, the court found that the venue was proper as against both Defendants under Pa. R.C.P. 1006(c).
Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.