Judge Mannion of Federal Middle District Court Allows Punitive Damages Claim to Proceed in Trucking Accident Case

In the case of Thomas v. Orozco-Pineda, No. 3:24-CV-00288-MEM (M.D. Pa. Nov. 8, 2024 Mannion, J.), Judge Malachy E. Mannion of the Federal Middle District Court of Pennsylvania addressed a Motion to Dismiss in which a trucking company Defendant asserted that a Plaintiff-spouse’s loss of consortium claim, presented in an Amended Complaint, was barred by the statute of limitations. The court also addressed a request by the Defendant for the dismissal of the Plaintiff’s punitive damages claims. The Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss was denied.

Relative to the argument by the Defendant that the Plaintiffs had presented a loss of consortium claim in the Amended Complaint after the statute of limitations had expired, the court found that there were issues of fact that needed to be resolved before the statute of limitations issue could be determined. 

With regard to the Defendants’ argument that there were no factual disputes to resolve with regards to the statute of limitations barring the loss of consortium claim, Judge Mannion disagreed and concluded that “factual disputes or the lack thereof are also issues to be determined on a Motion for Summary Judgment not a Motion to Dismiss.”

Relative to the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss the Plaintiffs’ punitive damages claims, the court also found this motion to be premature at the current stage of the litigation.

Judge Mannion noted that the courts of Pennsylvania have routinely denied requests to dismiss punitive damages claims in motor vehicle accident cases at the outset of litigation. The court noted that, as a general rule, the courts have deemed motions to dismiss punitive damages claims as premature and inappropriate where, as here, Complaint contains allegations of reckless conduct.

Judge Mannion additionally noted that, because the question of whether punitive damages are proper often turns on a defendant’s state of mind, i.e., the elements of malice or ill will required for punitive damages claims, the court found that question of whether the punitive damages claim should be dismissed cannot be resolved on the pleadings alone but must wait until the development of a full factual record through discovery or at trial.

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

Source: Article – “Judge Leaves Statute of Limitations Question In Injury Crash Suit For A Jury.” By: Riley Brennan Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Nov. 12, 2024).

Source of image:  Photo by Caleb Ruiter on www.unsplash.com.

Federal Court Addresses Products Liability Claims Involving a Medical Device

In the case of Ford v. St. Jude Medical, LLC, No. 3:21-CV-01765 (M.D. Pa. Sept. 23, 2024 Mehalchick, J.), the court granted in part and denied in part the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss.

The case involved allegations that the Plaintiff fell when his pacemaker device failed.  

The court ruled that Pennsylvania law does not permit strict liability claims in prescription medical product liability litigation against medical device manufacturers. This prohibition includes strict liability design and manufacturing claims.

Judge Mehalchick additionally ruled that the Plaintiff’s claims of an implied warranty based upon different or additional Pennsylvania medical device standards were preempted. The court additionally noted that, even if these claims were not preempted, such claims would also be barred by the Restatement of Torts (Second) §402a, comment k.

Judge Mehalchick additionally ruled that a loss of consortium claim cannot be based on a contractual claim for breach of an express warranty.

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

No Loss of Consortium Claims Recognized for Injury to Pets

In the case of Witters v. Smith, No. 1:23-CV-1441 (M.D. Pa. June 10, 2024 Connor, J.), the court granted in part and denied in part a Motion to Dismiss in a case involving claims of intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress relative to the shooting of the Plaintiff's dog.

In this matter, the only injury claimed was to the Plaintiff’s dog.  In this case, members of the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole allegedly entered the Plaintiff's backyard without their permission and shot their pet dog.  The Plaintiff's pursued various claims.

The court ruled the Pennsylvania law requires that both intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress claims require that the Defendant caused some physical harm to the Plaintiffs.  Here, no physical harm to the Plaintiffs was alleged.

The court additionally ruled that the law of loss of consortium claims does not extend to the loss or injury to pets of a plaintiff.

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 the Reed Smith law firm for bringing this case to my attention.

Source of image:  Photo by Charles Deluvio on www.pexels.com.  

No Medical Expert Testimony Needed To Establish Causation Where Causal Relationship is Obvious

In the case of Bixler v. Lamendola, No. 3:20-CV-01819-CCC (M.D. Pa. July 5, 2022 Connor, J.), the court denied a Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment in a motor vehicle accident case after finding that expert medical testimony was not required to establish causation given that the driver’s testimony would allow the jury to infer that the claimed injuries resulted from the accident.

According to the Opinion, at the time of the accident, the Plaintiff was driving an empty tractor trailer at a speed of approximately 45-50 mph when the Defendant, who was traveling in from of the Plaintiff in the same direction, attempted to make a U-turn. More specifically, the Defendant’s vehicle moved towards the right side of the road and/or the right shoulder and then, as the Plaintiff’s vehicle approached, the Defendant pulled back onto the road and attempted to turn his vehicle into the opposing lane of travel. The Plaintiff was unable to avoid a collision which occurred while the tractor trailer was still moving at about 25-30 mph.

It was noted that the vehicle that the Plaintiff was operating at the time of the accident was rendered inoperable for about four (4) months following the accident due to the damages sustained.

The Plaintiff testified that, although he was wearing a seat belt at the time of the accident, he believed he struck parts of the interior of his vehicle because he had a bump on his head as well as bumps and bruises on his knees and arm. The Plaintiff did admit that he did not immediately notice any pain and declined medical treatment at the scene of the accident. 

Approximately two (2) days later, the Plaintiff began to experience left hand numbness and then sought out medical treatment with his family doctor the day after that at which point he was referred to a neurologist and then began to treat on a continuing basis thereafter.

Post-accident diagnostic tests including x-rays, an MRI, and a nerve test lead the neurologist to diagnose the Plaintiff with a bulging disc in his neck, causing a pinched nerve, which was noted to explain the complaints of left hand numbness.

During the course of the matter, the Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment arguing, in part, that the Plaintiff's failure to produce an expert medical opinion on causation defeated the Plaintiff's claim. 

The court cited to the law of Pennsylvania generally requiring expert medical opinion testimony to prove causation in personal injury cases. 

However, the court noted that expert opinion is not required if there is an obvious causal relationship between the alleged negligent act and the injury complained of. The court stated that a causal relationship is “obvious” if the injury is “either an ‘immediate and direct’ or the ‘natural and probable’ result of” the alleged negligence.

The court further noted that, in those cases in which expert testimony is not required, there are typically two common traits, that is, (1) the Plaintiff began to exhibit symptoms of the injury immediately after the accident or within a relatively short time thereafter, and (2) the alleged injury is the type that one would reasonably expect to result from the accident in question.

The court applied that law to this case and held that the record revealed facts under which expert medical testimony on causation was not required. As such, the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment in this regard was denied as a jury could easily find that the Plaintiff’s injuries were the natural and probable consequence of the accident.

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


Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (July 21, 2022).

Discovery of Communications With Divorce Attorney Allowed Relative to Loss of Consortium Claims

In the case of Corey v. Wilkes-Barre General Hospital, No. 1980 MDA 2017 (Pa. Super. Sept. 23, 2019 Ford Elliot, J., Gantman, J., Nichols, J.) (Op. by Ford Elliot, J.) (concurring and dissenting Op. by Nichols, J.) the Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed a decision by a Luzerne County judge allowing for the disclosure for certain divorce records in a wrongful death lawsuit against a hospital.

According to the Opinion the Plaintiff-wife filed a wrongful death lawsuit against the hospital over the death of her then estranged husband. As part of that lawsuit, the Plaintiff-wife filed a loss of consortium claim.

When the Defendants sought to discovery information contained in the divorce proceedings that were active at the time the estranged husband passed away, the Plaintiffs asserted that any communications between the Plaintiff-wife and her attorney in those proceedings were protected by the attorney/client privilege.

The Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed the ruling by a Luzerne County judge that the loss of consortium claim created an exception to the attorney/client privilege relative to the disclosure of the communications between the Plaintiff-wife and her attorney in the separate divorce proceedings.

In its Opinion, the Superior Court emphasized that, in order to recover on a loss of consortium claim, the spouse who brings that claim must demonstrate and injury to the marital relationship that deprives him or her of the companion, society, affection and sexual relations that spouses share prior to the injury and that, but for the injury, the two would have continued to share.

The Superior Court noted that, where an alleged marital injury is suffered during the pendency of a divorce, the spouse bringing a claim for loss of consortium places the marital relationship at issue because, in order to prove a loss of consortium, the divorcing spouse must first prove the existence of consortium.

In this regard, the appellate court noted that a spouse cannot hide behind the attorney/client privilege to protect communications he or she may have had with a divorce attorney when it is that spouse who placed the marital relationship, and consequently, the state of the divorce, at issue in the first place by including the claim for loss of consortium. 

The Superior Court noted that, to rule otherwise and to allow for the privilege to be asserted, would “frustrate the administration of justice by given [the spouse] an unfair advantage and by prejudicing [a Defendant’s] defense of the claim.”

Anyone wishing to review Judge Ford Elliott's Majority Opinion may click this LINK.

Judge Nichols Concurring and Dissenting Opinion can be viewed HERE.

Source: Article: “Court: Divorce Records Discoverable in Cases with Loss of Consortium Claims.” By P.J. D’Annunzio of the Pennsylvania Law Weekly (September 25, 2019).

No Loss of Consortium Claim Allowed to Nephew Relative to Aunt or Uncle

In the case of Young v. Est. of Young, No. 658 C.D. 2015 (Cmwlth. Ct. April 12, 2016 Simpson, Wojcik, Pellegrini, J.J.)(Op. by Simpson, J.), the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court sustained preliminary objections to a Complaint and ruled, in pertinent part, that there is no cause of action recognized in Pennsylvania for a nephew's loss of an aunt's or uncle's consortium based upon alleged mistreatment by third parties during the elderly aunt's and uncle's final days.


The strange facts of this case can be read online HERE.