Court Rules That Defense Can Challenge Life Expectancy With Evidence of Plaintiff's Alcohol Abuse

In the case of Mackey v. Chipotle, No. 2:23-cv-00519-GAM (E.D. Pa. Oct. 16, 2024 McHugh, J.), the court addressed the admissibility of a Plaintiff’s history of alcohol consumption as part of a defense to a Plaintiff’s future economic damages claims in a personal injury matter.

This case arose out of a trip and fall event.

Before the court was a motion by the Plaintiff to preclude any introduction of the Plaintiff’s history of alcohol consumption. The Plaintiff was asserting that this evidence was irrelevant and prejudicial.

The Defendant contended that the Plaintiff’s consumption was relevant to the Plaintiff’s projected life expectancy and that the evidence also provided an explanation for a subsequent fall unrelated to the Plaintiff’s physical limitations.

After reviewing the evidence presented and weighing the probative value against the prejudicial impact of that evidence as required by Federal Rule of Evidence 403, the court concluded that the Plaintiff’s history of alcohol consumption was admissible as to the Plaintiff’s evidence of his life expectancy, but inadmissible for any other purpose. 

The court noted that, because life expectancy is the single most critical determinant of the estimated future damages, factors that may influence one’s life expectancy are “highly relevant” under Rules of Evidence.

While noting that evidence of alcohol consumption can create a risk of unfair prejudice under the Rules of Relevance, the court found that the evidence in this context did not substantially outweigh the highly probative value that the evidence of alcohol consumption had on the Plaintiff’s life expectancy and future damages. 

Accordingly, the evidence of Plaintiff’s alcohol consumption, which court to the Opinion was significant on a daily basis, was allowed to be introduced for the jury’s assessment in determining life expectancy. The court noted that it would provide a cautionary instruction with the intent of attempting to limit any possible prejudice.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.  The Court's companion Order can be viewed HERE.


Source: Article – “‘Well-Documented’ Medical Records of Alcohol Consumption Rates Maybe Considered For Life Expectancy Costs, Judge Finds.” By Riley Brennan. Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Oct. 18, 2024).

Source of image:  Photo by Clam Lo from www.pexels.com.

Superior Court Upholds Admission of Evidence of Plaintiff's Consumption of Alcohol in Pedestrian Accident Case

In the case of Moffitt v. Miller, No. 8 EDA 2023 (Pa. Super. Sept. 18, 2023, Pelligrini, J., Bowes, J., and Stabile, J.) (Op. by Pelligrini, J.), the Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed a lower court’s denial of Plaintiff’s post-trial motions in a case involving a pedestrian Plaintiff who was struck by a motor vehicle.

The court found that the low verdict and the 50/50 negligence apportionment by the jury were not against the weight of the evidence.

One of the issues that the Plaintiff challenged was the admission of testimony regarding the Plaintiff's consumption of alcohol before the accident.  The appellate court found that evidence of the Plaintiff pedestrian’s high blood alcohol level at the time of the accident was properly admitted by the court below. 

The Superior Court noted that the evidence was supported by competent expert testimony that the Plaintiff’s judgement would be impaired. Additionally, there was witness testimony that the Plaintiff smelled of alcohol at or around the time of the incident. The court noted that the exclusion of this evidence would have deprived the jury of relevant evidence to consider in its decision.

The court also found that the Defendant’s alcohol expert was competent to testify based upon the expert’s several decades of experience of treating alcoholics.

In another notable ruling, the Superior court ruled that evidence established that the Plaintiff had attempted to cross the street in a mid-block area and outside of any crosswalk. As such, the court found that the Plaintiff's requested “unmarked crosswalk” instruction was properly denied.

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

I send thanks to Attorney James M. Beck of the Philadelphia office of Reed Smith law firm for bringing this case to my attention.

Court Finds That Plaintiff Stated Valid Cause of Action For Negligence Against Adults For Serving Alcohol To Minor in a Fatality Case

In the case of Sheik v. Morgan, No. 10244 of 2022 C.A. (C.P. Lawr. Co. Nov. 30, 2022 Motto, P.J.), the court overruled a Defendant’s Preliminary Objections in part in a case in which the Plaintiffs allege negligence against adult Defendants for allowing or encouraging underage drinking in their homes.

According to the Opinion, the case arose out of an event during which the Plaintiff’s child spent the night at a friend’s house at which she was allegedly allowed to consume alcohol at that home and two (2) other homes that were visited during the course of the evening.  While the minor was at one of the residences, the minor, in an allegedly intoxicated state, allegedly attempted to take steps leading from a garage to a basement when she allegedly fell and allegedly suffered injuries to her head. The minor tragically died from her injuries approximately six (6) days later.

The court found that the facts alleged in the Plaintiff’s Complaint were sufficient to establish a legally cognizable claim for negligence as adults owe a duty of care to minor guests in their home and the adults in this matter allegedly breached that duty by serving alcoholic beverages to minors in any event.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision, which provides a thorough overview of the current status of the law relative to the service of alcohol by adults to minors, may click this LINK.

Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Jan. 10, 2023).

 

Judge Brann of Federal Middle District Issues Opinion Addressing Motions to Dismiss and/or Stay in College Hazing Case

In the case of Piazza v. Young, No. 4:19-cv-00128 (M.D. Pa. Aug. 27, 2019 Brann, J.), the court addressed various Motions to Dismiss and Motions to Stay in a civil lawsuit arising out of the fatal injuries sustained by a student at Penn State allegedly as a result of hazing activities in a fraternity.  The court granted the motions in part and denied the motions in part.  

Of note, with respect to those fraternity brothers Defendants who were under the age of 21, the court allowed the claims of the Plaintiff to proceed against those underaged Defendants under the Plaintiff’s theory of recovery to hold the Defendants liable for breaching an alleged protective duty that the Defendants, as fraternity members, allegedly owed to the Plaintiff’s son, a fraternity pledge. 

Judge Matthew W. Brann
M.D. Pa.

In this regard, Judge Brann refused to apply the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Kapres v. Heller, 640 A.2d 888 (Pa. 1994) in as an expansive manner as requested by those moving Defendants who were under the age of 21.   Under the Kapres case, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court generally ruled that individuals under the age of 21 cannot be held liable under the social host doctrine to a guest or third party injured on the premises relative to the service of  alcohol. 

The court in this Piazza case refused to read the Kapres case as immunizing the fraternity Defendants in this case from alleged liability for their otherwise allegedly wrongful conduct that involved the provision of alcohol.   See Op. at 16-18.  The court also noted that an expansive reading of the Kapres decision in the context of this case would not serve to further the social utility of the Pennsylvania statutes against hazing activities.

However, the court did otherwise note that the Plaintiff’s separate claim for negligence per se relative to the service of alcohol asserted against the fraternity Defendants who were under the age of 21 should be dismissed under the rationale of the Kapres case.  

This Opinion is also notable for the court’s review of the law pertaining to allegations of breach and causation, hazing allegations, allegations of civil conspiracy and claims of battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress.  

The court ruled that those defendants who acted to aid plaintiff after his accident can be liable under Restatement §§323, 324A for negligently failing to seek professional medical help.  However, the court found that other defendants who did not act to aid the Plaintiff could not be found to be liable for failing to render any aid as there is no cognizable duty under these facts to rescue in the first place.

Judge Brann also found that a negligence per se claim based upon an alleged violation of Pennsylvania’s anti-hazing statute is a viable claim. 

The Plaintiff’s intentional infliction of emotional distress claim was dismissed under the rationale that an alleged attempted cover up of the incident did not amount to an intent to inflict emotional distress on anyone.

The court additionally denied the Motion to Dismiss the claims of punitive damages asserted in this matter.   The court noted that it has routinely declined to dismiss punitive damages demands at the Motion to Dismiss stage of the case and prior to discovery.  

Judge Brann also addressed separate Motions to Stay filed by several Defendants who have been criminally charged arising out of the same incident.  

On this issue, the court reviewed the six (6) factors required under the case of Barker v. Kane, 49 F.Supp. 3^rd 521, 525-26 (M.D. Pa. 2016) and granted this in part and denied it in part.   Essentially, the court denied the request to stay the matter but crafted the remedy that entitles certain Defendants to exercise their right against self-incrimination.   The court noted that certain Defendants would not be required to  answer any pleadings or discovery or participate in any depositions that would implicate their Fifth Amendment Right against self-incrimination by engaging in such pleadings and discovery.  

Anyone wishing to review this decision by Judge Brann may click this LINK.

College Held Not Responsible for Acts of Inebriated Fraternity Member Under Facts Alleged

In the case of Rose v. Vilmatelo, No. 2018-SU-450 (C.P. Adams Co. April 12, 2019 George, J.), the court addressed Preliminary Objections filed by Gettysburg College seeking the dismissal of a Plaintiff’s personal injury claim arising out of allegations that the Plaintiff, a college student, was injured by an allegedly inebriated participant at a fraternity function on campus.  

The Plaintiff alleged that the college was responsible for the acts of its students and that the college breached its duty to supervise the actions of the fraternity.

The court dismissed the Plaintiff’s Complaint against the college based upon the case of Alumni Ass’n v. Sullivan, 572 A.2d 1209 (Pa. 1990) in which it was held that college students were no longer minors, but rather adults who were capable of protecting their own self interests.  As such, under that case, a college was found not to have any duties in loco parentis with respect to its students.  

The trial court in this matter rejected the Plaintiff’s efforts to get around the Sullivan case by way of the Plaintiff’s arguments that (1) the college was allegedly aware that alcohol consumption was a problem on campus, (2) that the college had previously enacted rules requiring fraternities to notify the college administration of any events involving alcohol and, (3) in that the college required the fraternities to have someone oversee conduct at such events.   The Plaintiff alleged that, by enacting these rules, the college had assumed a special duty to control the activities at the event.  

The trial court in this Rose case rejected these arguments and noted that prior case law in Pennsylvania had rejected these types of arguments.   The court noted that, by simply adopting social policies for campus activities, the college did not create an in loco parentis type of duty on the part of the college.   The court found that the college’s social policy and rules were not an assumption of a duty, but rather a policy statement that adult students should be aware of their own behavior and act accordingly.  

The court in this Rose case emphasized that the Plaintiff’s Complaint did not contain any allegations that the college itself was a social host.   

The Complaint also did not allege that representatives of the college were present at this fraternity function or that any college representative assisted in any way in procuring or distributing alcohol to the attendees of the event.

Based upon this rationale, the court sustained the Preliminary Objections asserted by the Defendant, Gettysburg College.  

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

Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (July 16, 2019).