PA Law Found To Apply to NJ Accident Under Choice of Law Analysis; Punitive Damages Claim in DUI Case Allowed to Proceed

In the case of Hutchinson v. Millet, No. 22-CV-1166 (C.P. Lacka. Co. Aug. 8, 2022 Nealon, J.), the court addressed choice of law questions and punitive damages issues in response to Preliminary Objections raised in a motor vehicle accident case.

According to the Opinion, this matter involved a fatal motor vehicle accident that occurred in New Jersey. 

The estate of the Lackawanna County decedent, who was killed in a New Jersey automobile accident while a passenger in a vehicle operated by a Lackawanna County resident and owned by the Defendant driver’s Lackawanna County employer, commenced this lawsuit against the deceased Defendant driver’s estate and his employer seeking to recover compensatory and punitive damages based upon alleged negligent and reckless conduct of the Defendant driver in allegedly causing the fatal collision while allegedly driving under the influence of alcohol, cocaine, and prescribed medications.

The deceased driver’s estate filed Preliminary Objections seeking to dismiss the punitive damages claims on the grounds that New Jersey law prohibits the recovery of punitive damages from a deceased tortfeasor’s estate, and also restricts an employer’s vicarious liability for punitive damages to those instances where the employer specifically authorized, ratified, or participated in the employee’s reckless conduct.

The Defendant driver’s estate alternatively argued that, even if Pennsylvania law applied, the punitive damages claims should be dismissed since the deceased Defendant driver was allegedly chargeable with nothing more than ordinary or gross negligence and such claims were insufficient to support a punitive damages claim.

In response, the Plaintiff’s estate asserted that Pennsylvania law governed and that Pennsylvania law allowed for the punitive damages claim.

Judge Terrence R. Nealon
Lackawanna County

After applying a detailed choice of law analysis, Judge Nealon ruled that Pennsylvania law controls the punitive damages issues raised by the Defendant’s Preliminary Objections.

Judge Nealon went on to note that, under Pennsylvania law, the estate of a tort victim may recover punitive damages from a deceased tortfeasor’s estate for causing an accident while operating a vehicle allegedly while impaired with alcohol or drugs. The court also noted that the employer of an allegedly intoxicated or impaired driver may be found vicariously liable for punitive damages even if that employer did not direct or ratify that reckless conduct.

As such, the court overruled the Defendant’s Preliminary Objections in the nature of a demurrer that was asserted against the punitive damages claims.

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

Employer Who Furnishes Alcohol At An Employee Event Considered to be a Social Host -- No Liability for Later DUI Accident By Employee

In the case of Klar v. Dairy Farmers of America, Inc., No. 1280 WDA 2020 (Dec. 17, 20221 Pa. Super. Olson, J., Nichols, J., and Musmanno, J.) (Op. by Olson, J.), the Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed the entry of judgment on the pleadings in favor of the Defendant.

For a summary of the trial court's opinion that was affirmed (and a Link to that decision), please see this Tort Talk Blog post HERE.

The trial court had entered judgment against the Plaintiff and in favor of an employer in a case in which the trial court had ruled that an employer who collects contributions for a social event was still considered to be a social host with respect to any liability claims under the Dram Shop Act. Based upon this ruling, the trial court dismissed the Plaintiff’s negligence claims against the employer.

According to the Superior Court's Opinion, the Pennsylvania was injured in a motor vehicle accident when the vehicle operated by the Defendant driver struck the Plaintiff’s motorcycle.

The Defendant driver was an employee of Dairy Farmers of America. That employer had sponsored a golf outing and encouraged its employees to attend. The employees made a monetary contribution to offset the cost of the greens fees, food, and alcohol. After collecting the contributions from the employees, the employer paid for the event in its entirety.

The Plaintiff alleged that, at the event, the Defendant driver consumed an amount of alcohol that raised his blood alcohol level beyond the legal limit. The Defendant driver then proceeded to drive and was involved in the accident with the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff sued the Defendant driver as well as his employer under negligence claims. The employer filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings arguing that it was not liable under the Dram Shop Act because it was a social host.

The Pennsylvania Superior Court ruled that an employer who furnished alcohol at a sponsored employee social event was not a licensee or other party subject to per se Dram shop liability but was instead a social host who could not be held proximately liable for an employee causing an alleged drunk driving accident.

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


Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Jan. 4, 2022).

Source of image:  Photo by Steven Shircliff on unsplash.com.

Summary Judgment Granted in Claim That Employee Was Driving Drunk

In the case of Huff v. Moser, No. Civil 14-S-773(C.P. Adams Co. May 14, 2018 George, J.), Judge Michael A. George of the Adams County Court of Common Pleas issued a Rule 1925 Opinion requesting the Superior Court to affirm his entry of summary judgment in a fatal motor vehicle accident case.     

In his trial court decision, Judge George concluded that the Plaintiff’s Complaint failed to allege a viable claim for vicarious liability on the part of a Defendant employer for actions of the employee who allegedly struck and killed a victim while driving the company car under the influence of alcohol. 

The court ruled in this fashion as none of the negligence allegations involved conduct committed during the course and scope of the driver’s employment.   The court emphasized that there were no specific allegations in the Complaint that the Defendant driver was working or acting within the course and scope of his employment at the time of the accident.   

The court additionally noted that, even if the Plaintiff had properly pled a claim for vicarious liability on the part of the employer for the actions of the driver, there was a lack of any factual dispute that would entitle the case to proceed to a jury on the liability issues presented.  

More specifically, the court noted that it appeared to the Plaintiff’s claim that the employer had a duty to secure a vehicle from being operated by an unlicensed driver who had been expressly prohibited from operating the vehicle. Judge George stated that he had not located any case law which placed a duty upon one to take affirmative steps to avoid criminal acts of another where there was no obvious known risk of such criminal acts.  

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

Source:  “Digest of Recent Cases.”  Pennsylvania Law Weekly (July 24, 2018).