In its recent decision in the case of
Dittman v. UPNC d/b/a The University of Pittsburgh Medical Center,
No. 971 WDA 2015 (Pa. Super. Jan. 12, 2017 Olson, J., Stabile, J., and
Musammno, J.) (Op. by Olson, J.), the Pennsylvania Superior Court addressed the
general question of whether a duty of care exists under the test set forth in
the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision in the case of
Althaus ex rel. Althaus v. Cohen, 756 A.2d 1166, 1169 (Pa. 2000). The
Dittman case involves an action for negligence and breach of contract against a
medical center after an alleged data breach with regards to the medical
center’s computer systems.
The Pennsylvania Superior Court found that the trial court
did not err in finding that the medical center owed no duty to the Plaintiff under Pennsylvania law.
The court also found that the trial court
did not err in dismissing the Plaintiff’s breach of contract claims in the
absence of any allegations that the medical center intended to enter into any
contract to protect the Plaintiff’s personal information allegedly exposed
during the data breach.
In its Opinion, the Pennsylvania Superior Court stated that,
under the Althaus test, whether a
duty exists is a question for the court to decide and, in so deciding, the
following factors are to be considered:
1. The
relationship between the parties;
2. The social
utility of the actor’s conduct;
3. The nature
of the risk imposed and foreseeability of the harm incurred;
4. The
consequences of imposing a duty upon the actor; and,
5. The overall
public interest in the proposed solution.
As stated, the court found that no duty existed under the
circumstances presented in this matter.
In its Opinion, the court also addressed the economic loss
doctrine, which provides that no cause of action exists for negligence that
results solely in economic damages unaccompanied by physical injury or property
damage. The court upheld the trial
court’s decision that the Plaintiff was barred from recovering economic losses as
the Plaintiff could not show that the Defendant breached any duty imposed by
law.
Anyone wishing to review the Opinion of Judge Olson issued
in this matter may click this
LINK.
Judge Stabile’s Concurring Statement, in which Judge Olson
joined, can be viewed at this
LINK.
Judge Musmanno’s dissenting statement can be viewed
HERE.
I send thanks to Attorney James M. Beck of the Philadelphia
office of Reed Smith law firm for bringing this case to my attention.
