Lessons in Complaint Drafting From Judge Mark Powell of Lackawanna County

In the case of Hoagland v. PPL Electric Utilities Corp., No. 2024-CV-5799 (C.P. Lacka. Co. Sept. 1, 2026 Powell, J.), the court addressed several Preliminary Objections filed by the Defendant in a motor vehicle accident in which the Plaintiff was a passenger in a freightliner that crashed and struck a PPL utility pole.

The Plaintiff contended, in part, that the pole was placed dangerously close to the roadway and that PPL’s negligent and reckless conduct related to the placement of the pole allegedly caused or contributed to the Plaintiff’s fatal injuries.

The court sustained PPL’s objection to the Plaintiffs’ inclusion of a “John Doe maintenance company” as a Defendant. The court noted that, although the Plaintiffs alleged that they utilized reasonable diligence in attempting to identify the unidentified company, Pa.R.C.P. 2005 expressly provides that the Doe-Defendant procedure is not available in an action commenced by way of a Writ of Summons as was the case in this matter. The court additionally noted that the subsequent filing of a Complaint did not alter the result. As such, the claims asserted against the Joe Doe Defendant in this matter were dismissed.

Judge Powell otherwise rejected PPL’s contention that the Plaintiffs’ allegations describing the pole as “too close,” “dangerous,” and “unsafe” lacked sufficient specificity. The court noted that, when the Complaint was considered as a whole, the allegations were specific enough to allow the claims to proceed.

The court did otherwise, however, strike the Plaintiffs’ generalized references in the Complaint to unspecified statutes, ordinances, regulations, and industry standards. In this regard, the court granted the Plaintiffs twenty (20) days to identify, more specifically, any statute, ordinances, regulations, or industry standards that they are relying upon.

Judge Mark Powell
Lackawanna County

Judge Powell additionally followed the trend of allowing the Plaintiffs’ allegations of recklessness to remain in the case given that claims of negligence were asserted.

Also allowed to continue were the claims for punitive damages. The court noted that the Plaintiff had alleged that PPL knew the pole was dangerously close to the roadway, appreciated the risk it presented to motorists, and consciously disregarded that risk.

Judge Powell otherwise struck the Plaintiffs’ generalized allegations of negligent maintenance and repair because the Plaintiffs failed to identify any physical defect with the pole.

A separate negligent inspection theory was found to be viable because an inspection arguably could have disclosed that the pole’s proximity to the roadway allegedly presented an unsafe condition.

The court otherwise also concluded that the Plaintiffs plead a viable negligence claim under Tolerico v. Bonham, 650 A.2d 1192 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1994), which recognizes a utility company’s duty to locate and maintain utility poles so as to avoid unreasonable and unnecessary dangers to motorists on roadways.

The court emphasized that the Tolerico case also established that a driver’s departure from the roadway does not necessarily constitute the sole or superseding cause of an ensuing collision with a utility pole.

Here, the court concluded that it could not determine from the pleading that the driver’s loss of control was so extraordinary or unforeseeable so as to relieve PPL of liability as a matter of law.

Accordingly, the question of whether the pole was dangerously located and whether its placement was a substantial factor in causing the death of the decedent remained a factual question for discovery and, if appropriate, trial.


Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.

Source of image:  Photo by Mitchell Luo on www.unsplash.com.