Trial Court Allows Claims of Recklessness and Punitive Damages to Proceed Where Defendant Driver Took Eyes Off Road Where Something Fell to the Floor of Vehicle

In the case of Lin v. Gutowski, No. 2024-CV-5659 (C.P. Lacka. Co. Aug. 11, 2025 Powell, J.), Judge Mark Powell of the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas overruled a Defendant’s Preliminary Objections seeking to strike claims for recklessness, punitive damages, and negligent entrustment in an alleged distracted driver motor vehicle accident case.

Judge Mark Powell
Lackawanna County

Relative to the allegations of recklessness, Judge Powell followed the current trend of allowing allegations of recklessness to be pled generally in cases where negligence has been alleged. With regards to the claims for punitive damages, the court noted that the Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant was distracted by an item that fell to the floor which caused him to remove his eyes from the road while approaching the intersection at a speed that was allegedly too fast for the conditions and while failing to yield to traffic where the Plaintiff was attempting to make a left hand turn.

The court found that the allegations presented by the Plaintiff rendered it unclear as to whether or not a jury could find that such conduct was reckless such that the claim for punitive damages could be supported. In so ruling, Judge Powell cited to a Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision in which it was stated that a more appropriate course of action under the circumstances would be to pull to the side of the road to retrieve the item.

The court otherwise noted that the allegations that the Defendant driver diverted his eyes from the road, in combination with the allegations that the Defendant was traveling too fast for conditions and that he failed to yield to other traffic on the roadway, all served to support the Plaintiff’s potential claim for punitive damages. The court noted that it was otherwise not clear and free from doubt as to the Defendant’s subjective understanding of the risk his conduct posted to the safety of others and whether or the Defendant carelessly disregarded those risks. Accordingly, the court allowed the claim for punitive damages to proceed.

In his decision, Judge Powell also outlined the current status of the law regarding negligent entrustment claims. After applying that law to the case presented, the court noted that the Plaintiff’s claims that the Defendant owner knew or should have known that the Defendant driver had a prior history of motor vehicle violations and that the Defendant driver would allegedly fail to operate the vehicle safely, that the Defendant driver had a propensity for speeding and driving while distracted and for ignoring the law, not only stated claims for negligence, but also supported claims of recklessness for which a jury may decide to award punitive damages. As such, the court also overruled the Defendant’s Preliminary Objections to the Plaintiff’s claims of negligent entrustment.

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


I send thanks to Attorney Stephen T. Kopko of the Anzalone and Doyle law firm in Wilkes-Barre, PA for bringing this case to my attention.

Court Dismisses Negligent Entrustment Claim Against Parents Relative to Use of Cell Phone by Child

In the case of JH v. Dunmore School District, No. 3:24-CV-1154 (M.D. Pa. Aug. 8, 2025 Munley, J.), Judge Julia K. Munley of the Federal Middle District Court of Pennsylvania addressed various Motions to Dismiss filed by different Defendants relative to a case involving allegations that certain middle school student allegedly recorded a minor Plaintiff who was on the autism spectrum, inside a bathroom stall at the school and then allegedly disseminating that video to other students who also allegedly shared the video with others.

Among the claims presented by the Plaintiffs were allegations of negligence entrustment and intentional infliction of emotional distress against the minor Defendants at issue and their parents. The negligent entrustment claim was that the parents had negligently entrusted a cell phone owned by the parents to their children.

The court granted in part and denied in part the request for a dismissal of the negligent entrustment claims asserted against the parents given that the Plaintiffs did not allege facts to support their conclusion that the parent Defendants knew or should have known that their children would use their cell phones in ways that would hurt people.

The court also noted that, based upon the facts alleged by the Plaintiff, which included references to school policy and state law, the Plaintiffs’ allegations actually support the proposition that the parent Defendants yielded control of the cell phones, or the use of the cell phones to the teachers and administrators when their children were at school. 

In this regard, the court pointed to the school district’s rules requiring students to refrain from utilizing their cell phone on the school ground during school hours. 

The court emphasized that the alleged negligent conduct of the students took place during the course of the school day and that there were no allegations that any of the minor Defendants in this action shared the video of the minor Plaintiff outside of the school day. 

The court in this matter did allow the Plaintiffs’ claims or intentional infliction of emotional distress to proceed against the parent Defendants.

The court otherwise dismissed a number of claims asserted against the school district and school officials but allow the Plaintiffs to file another Amended Complaint relative to the possible civil rights allegations under 42 U.S.C. §1983.

The court allowed the claims of punitive damages to remain in the case relative to the claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress.

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

Source of image:  Photo by Tracy Le Blanc on www.unsplash.com.

Court Addresses Proper Pleading of Negligent Entrustment Claim in a Motor Vehicle Accident Case

In the case of Uslu v. Evans, No. 24-CV-5482 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 31, 2025 Sitarski, Mag. J.), the court granted a Motion to Dismiss a negligent entrustment claim in a motor vehicle accident case.

In this case, the court provided a thorough review of the current status of the law on the proper pleading of a negligent entrustment claim.   

The court noted that a Plaintiff may not assume that any entrustment of a vehicle was negligent. Rather, a Complaint must allege specific facts showing that, at the time the vehicle was entrusted to the driver, the Defendant vehicle owner knew, or reasonably should have known, that the driver was incapable of safely operating the vehicle or was otherwise unlikely to do so.

The court found that the allegations in the Plaintiff’s Complaint in this case were generic. The court otherwise noted that whether or not a Defendant concedes vicarious liability for negligent entrustment has nothing to do with whether the claim was properly pled.

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


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 Thirdman on www.pexels.com.

Claim of Punitive Damages in Alleged Distracted Driver (Cell Phone) Case Dismissed

In the case of Nichols v. Ray, No. 2019-GN-2711 (C.P. Blair Co. July 12, 2021 Doyle, J.), the court sustained a Defendant’s Preliminary Objections to allegations punitive damages based upon cell phone use in a motor vehicle accident case.

The court additionally sustained Preliminary Objections and struck a claim against another Defendant for negligent entrustment based upon a lack of sufficient factual specificity to support that claim. In this regard, the court noted that the claim of negligent entrustment involves knowledge that is incident-specific, and not only allgations of generalized misgivings in regards to allowing another person to operate a vehicle.

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

I send thanks to attorney William C. Robinson, III of the Pittsburgh law firm of Robb Leonard Mulvihill, LLP for bringing this case to my attention.

Source of above image:  Photo by D'Vaughn Bell from Pexels.com.

Summary Judgment Secured on Negligent Entrustment Claim

In the case of Jones v. Ritchie, No. 4983-Civil-2019 (C.P. Monroe Co. June 28, 2021 Williamson, J.), the court granted a defendant-owner’s motion for summary judgment on a negligent entrustment claim arising out of a motor vehicle accident matter.

In this case, the plaintiff had sued a number of parties, including the person who had rented a rental car and who had then allowed the defendant driver to operate the vehicle during which trip that driver rear-ended another vehicle.  At the time, the person who had rented the car and the driver who as in the accident were in a boyfriend-girlfriend relationship.

According to the Opinion, before the subject accident, the defendant driver had a prior conviction for a DUI, of which the party who had rented the vehicle was aware. 

The record before the Court also revealed that the renter of the car was also aware that, around the time of the accident, the defendant driver was taking methadone to address addiction issues. In fact, the renter of the car had allowed the defendant driver to utilize the vehicle on the day of the accident because driver was going to her methadone clinic for treatment.

In addition to suing the defendant driver and the rental car company, the plaintiff filed a negligent entrustment claim against the party who had rented the vehicle and then let the defendant driver drive the vehicle. 

The party who had rented the car filed a motion for summary judgment on the negligent entrustment claim.

After reviewing the current status of the law of negligent entrustment, the court ruled in favor of the person who had rented the car and asserted that there was no evidence that the defendant driver had just taken methadone or was on any other drugs or alcohol at the time of the accident. Nor was there any evidence that the cause of the accident was due to any methadone medication used by the driver. 

Additionally, the court stated that there was no evidence stated or presented by the plaintiff that would show that the defendant driver was a bad driver, or that on the date of the accident the defendant driver was in a condition that would make her unable to operate a vehicle in a safe manner, or that such was known to the defendant lessor.

In the end, the court stated that there was no evidence to show that the defendant who had rented the car would have had any reason to know or have any actual knowledge of the fact that allowing the defendant driver to operate the vehicle would give rise to an unreasonable risk of harm to others.

Rather, based upon the facts of the case, under which the plaintiffs were caused to come to an abrupt stop on the roadway due to traffic ahead, after which the defendant driver could not stop in time and contacted the rear of the plaintiff’s vehicle, it appeared to the court that this accident occurred due to simple human error.

As such, the court granted the defendant who had rented the car summary judgment on the negligent entrustment claims asserted against him.

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

Note:  I was the defense counsel for the defendant who rented the car and who allowed the defendant driver to drive the vehicle.  Anyone who may wish to review my Motion for Summary Judgment and Supporting Brief may contact me at dancummins@comcast.net.

A Primer on Negligent Entrustment Claims

In the case of L-Sharif v. Gagliordi, No. 10242 of 2020, C.A. (C.P. Lawr. Co. Oct. 13, 2020 Motto, J.), the court found that the Plaintiff’s negligent entrustment claim was legally insufficient where the Complaint lacked any averment to demonstrate that the Defendant driver was a habitually unsafe driver or that his employer, who was the owner of the vehicle the driver was operating at the time of the accident, knew or had reason to know that the Defendant driver was an unsafe driver when the owner entrusted the driver with the vehicle. The court granted the Plaintiff’s Preliminary Objections in part.

According to the Complaint, this matter arose out of a motor vehicle accident during which the driver was operating a pick-up truck owned by his construction company employer.

Reviewing the Plaintiff’s Complaint, the court found that the Complaint did not have any factual allegations to demonstrate that the driver was a habitually unsafe driver or any facts that the owner knew or had reasons to know that the driver was an unsafe driver. The otherwise bare allegations of negligent entrustment asserted by the Plaintiff were found to be insufficient.

As such, the Defendant owner’s Preliminary Objections were granted with respect to this claim.

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


Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Nov. 24, 2020).

Punitive Damages Claim Allowed To Proceed in Texting Case, But Not Negligent Entrustment Claim

In the case of Simpson v. Buchanan, No. 20-2583 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 5, 2020 Pappert, J.), the court denied a Defendant’s Partial Motion to Dismiss in a motor vehicle accident case involving alleged cell phone use by the Defendant driver.

The court found that allegations that a Defendant drove while being distracted by a cell phone was sufficient to support a claim for punitive damages.  More specifically, the Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant was texting at the time of the rear end accident.

Notably, the Court dismissed allegations of negligent entrustment against the Defendant-owner after the court found that the Plaintiff's allegations that the Defendant-owner knew or should have known that the Defendant-driver would be texting while driving were conclusory, speculative, and baseless allegations.  The Court also noted that the Plaintiff did not plead any facts to support a claim of prior knowledge on the part of the Defendant-owner of any poor driving history of the Defendant-driver.

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

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.

Judge Legg of Susquehanna Requires Sufficient Facts Before Recklessness Claim Can Proceed

In the case of Dayton v. Estate of Scully, No. 2019-646 C.P. (C.P. Susq. Co. July 14, 2020 Legg, J.), President Judge Jason J. Legg of the Susquehanna County Court of Common Pleas addressed Preliminary Objections filed by a Defendant in a motor vehicle accident case against allegations of recklessness and with respect to the negligent entrustment claims. 

The court came down with the line of cases holding that, in order for a Plaintiff to pursue a claim of recklessness, outrageous facts sufficient to support a punitive damages claim must be pled in the Complaint. Given that this matter involved a standard motor vehicle accident with no outrageous facts, the court struck the claims for punitive damages and/or recklessness.

Judge Legg also granted the Preliminary Objections filed against the Plaintiff’s claim for negligent entrustment. 

In this regard, the Plaintiff had alleged that the Defendant owner allegedly allowed an uninsured driver to operate a motor vehicle and were, therefore, negligent in failing to have adequate insurance coverage on the vehicle. At the argument, the Plaintiffs conceded that the vehicle was not uninsured, but rather, allegedly underinsured. 

The court noted that allowing a Defendant driver to drive a motor vehicle knowing that it was insured for up to $25,000.00 in property damages did not equate to knowledge that the Defendant driver would drive the vehicle in such a manner as to likely create an unreasonable risk of harm to others. Given that there was no valid negligent entrustment claim pled in the Complaint, the court granted this Preliminary Objection as well. 

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

The prevailing defense attorney was Stephen T. Kopko, Esquire of Cummins Law in Clarks Summit, PA.

Apparent Case of First Impression: Allegheny County Court Allows Independent Negligence Claims Against a Trucking Company to Proceed In Conjunction With Vicarious Liability Claims

In the case of Reutzel v. DTA, L.P., No. GD 17-4735 (C.P. Alleg. Co. Feb. 25, 2020 Connelly, J.), Judge Patrick M. Connelly of the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas denied the Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings seeking dismissal of all independent negligence claims against the employer-defendant in this motor vehicle accident case.

In his Opinion, Judge Connelly quoted to federal court decisions but noted that there was no state court authority on the issue presented of whether negligent hiring and supervision claims should be allowed to proceed in a state court case in a trucking accident case where the employer Defendant has agreed that there was an employer-employee relationship existing between the trucking company and the driver.

According to the Opinion, one of the defendant drivers was driving a tractor owned by MM Leasing as an employee of Defendant DTA, L.P.

The Plaintiff included claims of vicarious liability, respondeat superior liability, and master/servant responsibility against the employer of the defendant driver under theories of negligent entrustment, negligent hiring or retention, and negligent hiring or employment.

The employer Defendant filed Preliminary Objections seeking the dismissal of any independent negligence causes of action asserted by the Plaintiff against the employer Defendant. The employer Defendant asserted that these claims of independent negligence on the part of the employer should be dismissed because these claims offer no avenue for additional liability to the Plaintiff as the employer Defendant has admitted to an agency relationship will have them held liability if the driver is found to be negligent.

This state court judge noted that, although the federal courts have accepted such arguments by Defendant employers in this context and have dismissed negligent hiring and supervision claims where the employer concedes the employer-employee relationship, 

The rationale for this rule noted by the federal courts is that there would be nothing to be gained by allowing claims against both the employer and the driver to proceed, and it would be prejudicial due to the possible admission of evidence of prior accidents by the truck driver into evidence.

However, those federal courts have recognized an exception to that rule where a Plaintiff includes a punitive damages claim against the employer.

There is no indication that the Plaintiff in this matter asserted any punitive damage claims against the driver or employer in this case.

Judge Connelly emphasized that, under state court rules, Plaintiffs are permitted to plead claims in the alternative and that to allow these alternative theories of liability to proceed would serve complementary purposes of the law of torts of offering a plaintiff full opportunities to be fully compensated for the injuries alleged as allegedly caused by the parties involved.

Judge Connelly also suggested that the issue could be revisited at the trial stage to determine which claims the trial court judge would allow to proceed to verdict.

Anyone wishing to review this case may click this LINK.

I send thanks to Attorney Brad D. Trust of the Pittsburgh law office of Edgar Snyder & Associates, LLP for bringing this case to my attention.

Claims for Negligent Hiring, Retention and Supervision in Trucking Accident Cases Fail Where No Punitive Damages Alleged

In what may be a case of first impression in Pennsylvania state court, Judge David J. Williamson ruled that a claim against a truck driver's employer for negligent hiring, retention, supervision or entrustment cannot stand in the absence of a related claim for punitive damages.

In the case of Sullivan v. Crete Carrier Corp., No. 8716 - CV - 2015 (C.P. Monroe Co. Jan. 18, 2019 Williamson, J.), the court granted the Defendant’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on the Plaintiff’s claims for negligent entrustment, hiring, and retention against the trucker’s employer arising out of a trucking accident case.  

In the Complaint, the Plaintiff sued a Defendant truck driver and the trucking company for personal injuries.  The Plaintiff asserted claims for negligent entrustment and negligent hiring

and retention.   The Plaintiff did not make a claim for punitive damages in the Complaint.  

The defense asserted in its motion for summary judgment that, since the Plaintiff had not asserted a punitive damages claim, the Plaintiff's claim for negligent entrustment, hiring and retention must be dismissed as a matter of law.

Judge Williamson noted that the courts have generally dismissed claims for negligent supervision and negligent hiring when a supervisor concedes an agency relationship with a Co-Defendant, such as was the case in this matter.   However, a recognized exception exists when a Plaintiff has made a claim for punitive damages against a supervisor.  

Judge David J. Williamson
Monroe County

Citing to unpublished Federal District Court cases in Pennsylvania, the court stated that, where no punitive damages claim has been asserted against a supervisor Defendant, under Pennsylvania law, a trial court must dismiss negligent supervision and entrustment claims.  

The stated rationale is that the employer's liability is a derivative claim fixed by a determination of the employee's negligence.  Therefore, evidence of negligent hiring, retention, or supervision become irrelevant and prejudicial if the employer has already admitted to an agency relationship and where no claim for punitive damages exists.

In the end, the court ruled that, since the trucking company admitted that the trucker was acting within the scope of his employment at the time of the accident, and given that the Plaintiff had failed to plead a punitive damages claim against the trucking company, the Defendant’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment against the Plaintiff’s claims against the company for negligent entrustment, hiring, and retention, must be granted.  

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

Negligent Entrustment and Punitive Damages Claims In Case of Driver With Only a Learner's Permit (Cell Phone Use Also Alleged)

In the case of Robinson v. Marett, No. 10672 of 2018, C.A. (C.P. Lawrence Co. Dec. 20, 2018 Motto, P.J.), the court overruled the Defendants’ Preliminary Objections regarding issues of negligent entrustment and punitive damages in a motor vehicle accident case.  

The Defendants’ preliminarily objected to the Plaintiff’s Complaint asserting that the claim for negligent entrustment was legally insufficient because there was no evidence to establish that the driver was incompetent to operate the vehicle when it was entrusted to him by the owner of the vehicle.   

The Plaintiffs had alleged that the owner had allowed the driver to operate the vehicle when the driver only had a learner’s permit and was not supervised by an adult family member.   The Complaint additionally asserted that the driver was distracted by his use of a cell phone or other electronic device, was operating the vehicle at a high rate of speed, and was following the vehicle ahead too closely.  

The court ruled that these allegations were sufficient to support a claim for negligent entrustment because, under these circumstances alleged, the owner should have known the risk to others by allowing an unlicensed and unsupervised driver to operate the vehicle.  

The Defendant driver and owner had asserted that the driver had a driver’s license at the time of the accident such that the negligent entrustment claims should be rejected.  However, the court noted that this argument required the court to consider facts that were not contained within the Complaint, which was impermissible when deciding Preliminary Objections. The court noted that the Defendants could make this argument again by way of a summary judgment motion but reiterated that such an argument could not be the basis for allowing a Preliminary Objection.  

The Defendants additionally asserted that the Plaintiff’s allegations of recklessness should be stricken as scandalous or impertinent, because the Plaintiffs had no basis for recovering punitive damages under the facts alleged.  

The court rejected this argument after finding that the Plaintiffs had alleged sufficient facts from which a jury could conclude that the driver acted outrageously. These allegations indicated that the driver was not properly licensed and was not being attentive to other vehicles on the roadway at the time of the accident.  

As such, the Defendants’ Preliminary Objections were overruled and the Plaintiff's negligent entrustment claims were allowed to proceed.  

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

Source:  “Digest of Recent Opinions.”  Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Feb. 26, 2019).

Law of Negligent Entrustment Reviewed by Judge Zulick of Monroe County

For a recent case on the law of negligent entrustment in Pennsylvania, see Judge Arthur Zulick’s Opinion in the case of Waldron v. McHugh, PICS Case No. 16-0296 (C.P. Monroe Co. Nov. 19, 2015 Zulick, J.).  In his Opinion, Judge Arthur L. Zulick found that the car owner was not liable for injuries arising out of an accident based upon a theory of negligent entrustment.

In this matter, the vehicle was owned by grandparents who had given permission to their grandson to drive the vehicle.  At the time of the accident, the vehicle was actually being driven by the grandson’s live-in girlfriend. 

According to the court’s Opinion, the grandparent did not give the girlfriend permission to use the vehicle.   At the time of the accident, the grandson had possession of the grandparent’s vehicle as his vehicle was in the shop.   On the night in question, the girlfriend used the grandparent’s vehicle to go to the grocery store when the collision occurred.   This was the first time that the girlfriend had driven the vehicle.   It was alleged that she drove the vehicle with the permission of her live-in boyfriend.  

The Plaintiff asserted that the grandparents had granted very general permission to use the vehicle to their children and their grandchildren, allegedly including permission for them to allow others to drive the vehicle without further notice to the grandparent.   The Plaintiff further argued that the jury could infer that the grandparent intended that the same permission granted to the grandson extended to the girlfriend.

The court found no evidence to support these allegations.   After reviewing the law of negligent entrustment, the court also noted that the Plaintiff failed to present evidence to meet the other elements of a claim for negligence entrustment.  

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may email me at dancummins@comcast.net. 

Source:  “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (March 15, 2016).

 

Two Recent Notable Decisions From Lackawanna County Judge Carmen D. Minora

Standard for Motion for Recusal

In his October 1, 2012 Opinion in the case of Minor v. Erie Insurance Company, No. 2009 - CV - 1579 (C.P. Lacka. Co. Oct. 1, 2012 Minora, J.), Judge Carmen D. Minora of the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas rejected the carrier’s Motion for the judge to recuse himself from further involvement in this matter involving an insurance coverage dispute.

This matter arose out of a first party medical benefits dispute involving approximately $20,000.00 in medical bills and attorney’s fees. The case initially went through a court system arbitration at which the Plaintiff prevailed, followed by an appeal up to the jury trial level.

The parties came before Judge Minora at a Settlement Conference. At the conference, the Court recommended that the parties settle, given the time commitment, the costs associated with a jury trial, and given the relatively small amount of money at issue.

The Defendant moved for the Court to recuse itself under an argument that the Court had shown bias towards the Plaintiff at the conference. The Court denied the motion and the Defendant moved for a reconsideration of that decision.

In this Opinion, Judge Minora denied the Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration. Judge Minora's detailed Opinion provides a thorough recitation of the standard of review by a trial court judge for a motion for recusal.

In its ruling the Court in this matter noted that, generally speaking, a party seeking to recuse a judge must show evidence of bias, interest, unfairness, or other disqualifying factors. The Court must then make an independent self-analysis of its ability to be impartial, followed by an analysis of whether the Court’s continued involvement in the case would create an appearance of impropriety.

The Court in this matter concluded that it made an impartial decision that the Defendant had not made a good faith effort to resolve the case during the Settlement Conference as required by the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court also determined that its continued involvement in the case would not create an appearance of impropriety. The Court noted that it would be the jury, not the Court, that would render the ultimate decisions on the issues presented at trial.  As such, the motion for recusal was denied.

Anyone desiring a copy of this decision may contact me at dancummins@comcast.net.

Judge Carmen D. Minora
Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas

Negligent Entrustment

Judge Carmen D. Minora of the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas recently had another opportunity to address the issues surrounding a cause of action for negligent entrustment in the case of Guffey v. Kyriazis, No. 2009 - CV - 2308 (C.P. Lacka. Co. Sept. 21, 2010 Minora, J.).

In this matter, Plaintiff’s vehicle was rear-ended by the Defendant driver, who was allegedly under the influence of alcohol at the time of the accident. After the accident, the Defendant driver fled the scene and hid in his basement. When the police arrived at his home, the Defendant allegedly fled through the back door. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant driver fled because he was intoxicated.

The Plaintiff filed a Complaint against the Defendant driver and the owner of the Defendant’s vehicle. According to the Opinion, both Defendants co-owned the vehicle.

The Defendants moved for partial summary judgment under an argument that one co-owner of a vehicle cannot “entrust” the vehicle to the other co-owner under the context of a negligent entrustment claim.

Judge Minora noted that §308 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts defines the tort of negligent entrustment as when an actor permits another person to use a thing or engage in an activity when the actor knows or should know that the individual is likely to create a risk of harm to others. The Court also noted that Pennsylvania law has further established that the tort of negligent entrustment applies in a motor vehicle accident case when the owner of a vehicle entrusts that vehicle to an intoxicated person.

However, Judge Minora noted that, under the facts of the Guffey case, each of the co-owners of the vehicle had unfettered access to the vehicle and there was no legal right of one co-owner to withhold access to the vehicle from the other co-owner. As such, given that the Defendants were co-owners of the vehicle, “the act of entrustment never actually occurred.”

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the non-driver co-owner Defendant from this matter.

Judge Minora further ruled that the Plaintiffs did not have sufficient evidence of the Defendant driver’s alleged intoxication to support a claim of reckless indifference against that Defendant. The Court noted that proof of intoxication is relevant to a recklessness claim and that some Courts have held that a Plaintiff must present corroborating evidence on the issue of intoxication in order to pursue such a claim.

In this matter, the Plaintiff was unable to present any evidence of intoxication on the part of the Defendant driver because he had fled on the night of the accident. Judge Minora held that the mere act of fleeing was not enough to establish that the Defendant driver was intoxicated as there may have been numerous possible reasons for that Defendant’s actions.  As such, the Plaintiff’s claim of reckless indifference was dismissed as well.

Anyone desiring a copy of this decision in Guffey v. Kyriazis may contact me at dancummins@comcast.net.

Negligent Entrustment Claim Allowed to Proceed in Luzerne County

In the case of Zschunke v. Sitler, No. 13845 Civil 2010 (C.P. Luz. April 5, 2012 Vough, J.), Judge Michael T. Vough of the Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas denied a defendant's motion for summary judgment on a negligent entrustment claim in an auto accident case.  The decision was by way of a one line Order.

I have been informed that this case involved a Defendant driver taking his father's vehicle. The father claimed that his son, the Defendant driver, took the vehicle without his permission. The son allegedly had a very lengthy criminal history and drug problem, allegedly including a motor vehicle crash that happened 6 months before the subject accident, where the son allegedly took his grandfather's vehicle and allegedly hit another person head-on.

In the Complaint filed in this matter, the Plaintiff alleged negligence and negligent entrustment. Defendant filed Summary Judgment on the negligent entrustment issue.

The Plaintiff countered the motion by pointing to the Defendant driver's prior driving history and by pointing to issues of fact in the form of the Defendant driver asserting that he did have permission to drive the vehicle at the time of the accident.

As noted, Judge Vough denied the Summary Judgment motion.  Anyone desiring a copy of this Order in Zschuncke v. Sitler may contact me at dancummins@comcast.net.

Copy of Berks County Negligent Entrustment/Cell Phone Use Decision Secured

I have secured a copy of the Good v. Whitt Berks County decision I summarized in yesterday's blog post in which the court denied a negligent entrustment claim against a defendant owner based, in part, on the defendant driver's use of a cell phone at the time of the motor vehicle accident at issue.  Anyone desiring a copy may contact me at dancummins@comcast.net.

I send thanks to Attorney Jeffrey B. Rettig of the Lemoyne, PA law office of Johnson, Duffie, Stewart & Weidner, as well as Attorney Frank Baker of the Bethlehem, PA office of Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Garner, for forwarding a copy of the same.

Negligent Entrustment Claim Based on Cell Phone Use by Driver Rejected

In the Berks County case of Good v. Whitt, 104 Berks 62 (C.P. Berks Oct. 20, 2011), the court entered summary judgment in favor of the Defendant owner of a vehicle on a negligent entrustment claim in a case where the Plaintiff alleged the negligent entrustment of a vehicle to a young, inexperienced driver who was using a hand-held cell phone at the time of the accident.

The Plaintiff alleged that the inexperienced driver’s use of a hand-held cell phone at the time of the accident resulted in inattentiveness that caused the accident.

The court found that there was no evidence that the driver had a reputation as an unsafe driver so as to put the Defendant owner on notice that his entrustment of the vehicle to that driver would be negligent conduct. Additionally, the court found that the Defendant owner had no reason to believe that the driver was using a cell phone while driving or that the driver would disobey the owner’s instructions not to use the phone while driving.

I do not have a copy of this decision.  If anyone does have a copy, I would appreciate receiving a copy so I can share it here on this blog.

To review other Tort Talk posts pertaining to cell phone use civil litigation issues, click here.

Source: “Court Summaries” by Timothy E. Clawges, Pennsylvania Bar News, Volume 22, Number 3 (Feb. 6, 2012).

Plaintiff's Act of Permitting Unauthorized Person to Drive Results in Plaintiff's Vicarious Liability for Own Injuries

In its recent opinion in the case of Price v. Leibfried, No. 332 MDA 2011 (Pa. Super. Dec. 21, 2011 Gantman, Lazarus, and Olson, JJ.) (Opinion by Lazarus, J.), the Pennsylvania Superior Court addressed 75 Pa. C.S.A. §1574 which pertains to permitting unauthorized person to drive in the context of an auto accident litigation.

In this case, the evidence before the court confirmed that this matter involved a two car motor vehicle accident. The Plaintiff was a passenger in her own motor vehicle, which rear-ended a tractor trailer. The Plaintiff’s vehicle was being operated by her friend at the time of the accident  The Plaintiff named the friend as one of the defendants in the lawsuit.

Prior to the accident, the Plaintiff and her friend had been drinking alcohol throughout the evening.

In her Complaint, the Plaintiff alleged negligence against her friend and also sued a local tavern under the Dram Shop Act.

At the close of discovery, the Defendant driver filed a Motion for Summary Judgment asserting that the Plaintiff was vicariously liable for her own injuries and cited to 75 Pa. C.S.A. §1574 (Permitting Unauthorized Person to Drive).

In its opinion, the Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed the trial court finding that there was no genuine issue of material fact that the Plaintiff knew, prior to the accident, that the Defendant driver did not have a valid driver’s license on the night of the accident.  There was no issue of fact that the Plaintiff also knew that the Defendant driver had been drinking beer and hard liquor on the night in question.

Based on these facts, the Superior Court agreed with the trial court decision that, as a matter of law, the Plaintiff was therefore vicariously liable for the Defendant driver’s negligence in the operation of the Plaintiff's vehicle pursuant to 75 Pa. C.S.A. §1574, as interpreted under the case of Terwilliger v. Kitchen, 781 A.2d 1201, 1206 (Pa. Super. 2001).

The Superior Court agreed that no reasonable minds could differ on a conclusion that the facts established that the Plaintiff had knowledge that the Defendant driver was not a licensed driver and that, despite this knowledge, the Plaintiff still authorized or permitted the Defendant driver to drive her vehicle. Since the Plaintiff therefore violated §1574 of the Motor Vehicle Code by allowing an unauthorized person to operate her vehicle, the court agreed that the Plaintiff was vicariously liable for the Defendant driver’s negligence.

The court went on to state that, since the Plaintiff was vicariously liable for the Defendant driver’s actions, she could not recover damages from that Defendant.

In so ruling, the court allowed the remaining claim by the Plaintiff against the Defendant tavern to proceed to trial where an apportionment of the percentage of liability between the Defendant driver and the tavern would be left for the jury to decide.  Based upon this ruling, however, the Plaintiff would not be permitted to recover against the Defendant driver on any verdict entered against that particular defendant.

Anyone desiring a copy of this opinion may contact me at dancummins@comcast.net.

Lackawanna County Judge Carmen Minora Has Two Cases on Last Week's "Most Wanted Opinions" in Pennsylvania Law Weekly

In last week's Pennsylvania Law Weekly, two recent opinions by Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas Judge Carmen Minora were listed as some of the "Most Wanted Opinions," or the most frequently requested decisions from the Pennsylvania Instant Case Service offered by that legal newspaper. Copies of the below opinions can be secured from the Law Weekly, for a small fee, by calling 1-800-276-7427 and giving the PICS No. noted below. What follows is a concise summarization of the cases:

Carra-Cielski v. Scrimalli, PICS Case No. 091650, 2006-CIVIL-2735 (Lacka. Co. August 18, 2009, Minora J.)

Judge Minora addressed the issue of whether a Defendant-owner of a motor vehicle should be granted summary judgment on a negligent entrustment claim involving a Defendant-driver who was the owner's grandson and who had a history of underage drinking.

Judge Minora acknowledged in his opinion that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has limited the theory of negligent entrustment to specific and narrow situations where the owner of the vehicle knew or should have known that when permission was given to the driver, the driver was not in a condition to operate the vehicle.

However, Judge Minora appeared to expand that rule of law under the facts of this case to allow the claim of negligent entrustment to continue even though it did not appear that there was any evidence that the Defendant-owner knew or should have known that the Defendant-driver was incompetent to drive the vehicle at the time the Defendant-driver took the vehicle just prior to the accident.

In this case, Judge Minora pointed to the fact that the Defendant-driver, who was the grandson of the Defendant-owner and who had unfettered access to the vehicle, was known to have a history, over the two years leading up to the accident, of engaging in repeated patterns of underage drinking. It was also noted that, on at least one occasion prior to the subject accident, the Defendant-driver had even been found to have been drinking and driving the subject vehicle.

As such, Judge Minora ruled that the repeated conduct of the Defendant-driver arguably demanded greater vigilance, supervision, and control by the Defendant-owner over the vehicle that he owned. Accordingly, the Court felt that a jury could conclude that the Defendant-owner knew or should have known that the Defendant-driver “could become incompetent to drive his motor vehicle.” The Court found that the Defendant-owner’s willful blindness to his grandson’s repeated illegal activities means the Plaintiff could possibly prove to a jury the necessary elements constituting the cause of action of negligent entrustment.

As such, Judge Minora felt that it was premature to dismiss this case at the summary judgment stage.


Veltri v. Travelers Commercial Insurance Company, PICS Case 09-1653, No. 08-CIVIL-8534 (Lacka. Co. September 2, 2009)

This case involved a motor vehicle accident during which the Plaintiff’s vehicle was struck in a rear-end collision by a tractor trailer. The Plaintiff’s first party motor vehicle insurance carrier was Travelers. Travelers initially paid first party medical and wage loss benefits and then referred the Plaintiff for an IME.

The first IME was favorable to the Plaintiff and, as such, Travelers was compelled to continue paying first party benefits.

Thereafter, Travelers requested a second IME with a new and different “defense” physician (as described in the opinion) who issued an assessment that the Plaintiff’s allegedly ongoing conditions were no longer related to the subject accident. Based upon the second IME, Travelers ceased all first party benefits.

Judge Minora noted in his opinion that, “[w]ithout much surprise,” Travelers’ decision to terminate first party benefits led to the filing of a breach of contract and bad faith Complaint by the Plaintiff.

Travelers responded with Preliminary Objections to the bad faith count of the Complaint alleging that the general tenets of the bad faith statute at 42 Pa. C.S.A. §8371 are negated by the specific first party benefit remedies of the MVFRL found at 75 Pa. C.S.A. §1716 and §1798.

Judge Minora denied the Travelers’ Preliminary Objections and rejected the contention that the rules of statutory construction mandate that the punitive provisions for the nonpayment of first party benefits found under the MVFRL negate or trump the general bad faith statute. The court essentially ruled that where, as here, the Complaint alleges culpable misconduct both within and beyond the coverage of the specific statutes of the MVFRL, then the general bad faith statute at §8371 may additionally apply as well.