Punitive Damages Claims and Direct Liability Claims Against a Trucking Company Dismissed

In the case of Villagran v. Freightbull, Inc., No. 22-CV-2159 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 12, 2023 McHugh, J.), the court dismissed a Plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages after finding that the Plaintiff did not present any evidence to satisfy Pennsylvania’s high standards for punitive damages.

This matter involved a fatal trucking accident.  The Plaintiff asserted both direct and vicarious liability claims against the company that employed the trucker.

The trucking company filed a motion for summary judgment relative to the punitive damages claims and the claims of direct liability asserted against the company relative to allegations of negligent hiring and supervision.

The trucking company noted that, if the punitive damages claim was dismissed then the direct claims of liability should be dismissed as well because, in the absence of punitive damages claims, the evidence to prove direct liability was both unnecessary and prejudicial.  

The court reiterated the settled law that an entitlement to punitive damages requires that conduct go beyond any type of negligence and instead include intentional, reckless, or malicious conduct. The law also required that the Defendant have a subjective appreciation of the relevant risk.

The court additionally noted that any conduct supporting a claim for punitive damages must have a role in causing the Plaintiff’s injuries.  Factually irrelevant conduct is not enough to support a claim for punitive damages.

In this regard, the court found that, there was nothing in the record to suggest that a Defendant’s safety director’s lack of qualification was usually for a family business or was otherwise egregious.

In this case, the court noted that the alleged failure to train the driver was factually irrelevant, since trip planning had nothing to do with the accident.

It was additionally noted that a videotape of the accident refuted the Plaintiff’s claim that the Defendant’s driver did not stop at the intersection. It was noted that the video also revealed no other basis for punitive damages.

The court otherwise ruled that a majority blanket rule barring direct negligent driver hiring and supervision claims where vicarious liability is admitted and punitive damages are not at issue was too extreme of a position. The court noted that rejecting such claims only when evidence would be excessively prejudicial under F.R.E. 303 is preferable.

In this case, the direct claims of liability were dismissed as the evidence would be unduly prejudicial to the Defendant. The court found that evidence of direct corporate negligence was minimal, peripheral, and factually unrelated to the subject accident in this matter.

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


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

Motion To Dismiss Punitive Damages Claim Granted Where Evidence of Recklessness Was Lacking in "Run-of-the-Mill Intersectional Collision" Case

In the case of Barbarevech v. Tomlinson, No. 18-CV-4821 (C.P. Lacka. Co. March 25, 2022 Nealon, J.), the court addressed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment filed by a Defendant in a motor vehicle accident case seeking to dismiss punitive damages asserted against the Defendant on the ground that the evidence presented by the Plaintiff was insufficient as a matter of law to sustain the Plaintiff’s claims of recklessness.

The employer Defendant also sought to dismiss the Plaintiffs’ direct liability claim for negligent hiring, training, and supervision of the employee under an argument that the employer’s admission that the employee was acting within the scope of her employment at the time of the accident.

Relative to the punitive damages claims, after noting that there was no evidence in the record that the Defendant driver was speeding, driving while impaired or distracted by cell phone use, or otherwise engaged in unreasonable conduct manifesting a conscious disregard of a known or obvious risk posing a high probability of harm to others, the court granted the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the claim for punitive damages.

The court additionally noted that, based upon the facts of this “run-of-the-mill intersectional collision,” the Plaintiffs’ expert was not permitted to express a legal opinion that the Defendant driver was chargeable with “reckless indifference” as defined by Pennsylvania law, particularly since the record did not contain an adequate basis in fact for that opinion.

The court also rejected the Plaintiffs’ attempt to assert that the Defendant employer’s post-accident investigation of the collision did not cause or contribute to the accident or the harm that the Plaintiff had suffered and, as such, could not serve as a basis for the Plaintiff’s punitive damages claims. Judge Nealon otherwise stated that there was no other evidence in the record that the Defendant employer acted in a willful, wanton, or reckless manner.

As such, the Motion to Dismiss the Punitive Damages Claim was granted.

On the separate claim of direct employer liability for the alleged negligence in selecting, training, and supervising employees and their activities, the court allowed this claim to proceed after finding that Pennsylvania case law provides that a Plaintiff may pursue such a claim against an employer on theories of direct and vicarious liability, either at the same time or alternately, and Plaintiffs need not surround a direct liability claim against the employer if the employer acknowledges an agency relationship with the employee. As such, the employer’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment with regards to the independent claim for negligent hiring, training, and supervision was denied.

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

Federal Court Addresses Validity of Direct Claims of Liability Asserted Against Trucking Company

In the case of Miller v. M.H. Malueg Trucking, Co., LLC, No. 2:20-CV-00413-RJC (W.D. Pa. March 8, 2021 Colville, J.), the court granted a Defendant trucking company’s Motion to Dismiss a Plaintiff’s direct negligence claim against the trucking company arising out of a motor vehicle accident after the court found that the Plaintiff had conceded that she had not pled facts sufficient to support a claim for punitive damages that could serve as the predicate for a direct negligence claim against that trucking company.

The court noted that the parties had previously filed a Stipulation agreeing that the Defendant driver was an agent of the Defendant trucking company.

The Plaintiff had alleged in her Complaint that the Defendant trucking company was vicariously liable for the driver’s negligence and was also liable for negligent hiring, training, monitoring, and supervising the driver, for failing to ensure PennDOT regulations were followed, and was also negligent for failing to maintain a proper driver safety program for its drivers.

The Defendant moved to dismiss all direct claims of liability and did not move to dismiss the vicarious liability count.

Citing the case of Sterner v. Titus Transp., 2013 WL 6506591 (M.D. Pa. 2013)[other citations omitted], the court held in this Miller case that the claims of direct corporate negligence was subject to dismissal when the agency relationship was admitted and when the Plaintiff had not pled a basis for punitive damages.

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


Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (March 25, 2021).

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 Hiring/Supervision Claim Against Hospital Allowed To Proceed in Absence of Certificate of Merit

In the case of Joyner v. St. Luke’s Univ. Hosp., No. 2018-C-1033 (C.P. Leh. Co. Oct. 19, 2018 Johnson, J.), the court overruled a hospital’s Preliminary Objections asserting that the Plaintiff’s claims against the hospital for negligent hiring and supervision could not proceed in the absence of a Certificate of Merit.  As such, the Plaintiff was permitted to proceed on the claims presented.

The court ruled in this fashion after finding that the Plaintiff’s claim sounded in ordinary negligence and not professional negligence.  

In this matter, the Plaintiff alleged that she was sexually assaulted by an employee of the hospital while the Plaintiff was a patient at the hospital.   The Complaint asserted a claim against the hospital for negligent hiring, supervision, and training.  

After the Complaint was filed, the hospital filed a Notice of Intention to Enter a Judgment of Non Pros on a professional liability claim because Plaintiff did not file a Certificate of Merit.  

The Plaintiff responded with a Motion to Determine a Necessity of Filing a Certificate of Merit Pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1042.6.   The hospital then filed a Preliminary Objection as to the sufficiency of the Plaintiff’s claim against it.  

As stated, the court found that the Complaint asserted an ordinary negligence claim for which a Certificate of Merit was not required.   The court more specifically stated that the Plaintiff’s claim against the hospital did not raise questions of medical judgment, allege substandard medical treatment, or allege that the hospital’s actions fell below a professional or medical standard.   

The court additionally found that a jury could determine whether the hospital allegedly breached its duty to properly hire, supervise, and train its employee without any need for expert opinion.  

Accordingly, the court found that the Plaintiff could proceed in this claim without the necessity of filing a Certificate of Merit.

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

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

THE FUTURE IS NOW: PA Federal Court Addresses Personal Injury Liability Claims Against Uber

In the case of Fusco v. Uber Technologies, Inc.,  No. 17 - 00036 (E.D. Pa. July 27, 2018 Goldberg, J.)(Mem. Op.), the court granted Uber’s Motion for Summary Judgment as to negligent hiring, retention and supervision claims in a case of an Uber driver who allegedly attacked the Plaintiff customer.  

The court granted the Motion given that there was no record of any alleged instances of past misconduct by the offending driver.  

The court noted, however, that, after the Plaintiff filed his Complaint, news outlets in the area reported that the driver involved in the incident had a prior criminal conviction.  As such, the court granted the Plaintiff leave to amend his Complaint as to these claims and deferred consideration of the driver’s past conviction until a later date in the proceedings.  

By way of background, the Plaintiff attended a party in the University City neighborhood of Philadelphia. Given that the Plaintiff had alcohol at the party, he contacted Uber for a ride to his home in Cherry Hill, New Jersey.  

According to the Opinion, the Uber app conceals the customer’s destination until the start of a booked trip.   Accordingly, when a driver arises to pick up the Plaintiff, he does not know the Plaintiff’s destination.  The app is apparently set up in this way so as to the prevent drivers from declining routes they deem to be less profitable.   According to the Opinion, Uber does not allow drivers to refuse a trip after learning of a customer’s destination.  

In this matter, when the Uber driver arrived, he refused to take the Plaintiff to his home in southern New Jersey.  The Plaintiff remained seated in the car and repeated his request to be brought home.  

At that point, the driver dragged the Plaintiff out of the car, kicked him and beat him, leaving the Plaintiff unconscious and bleeding. The Plaintiff later filed this suit against Uber asserting a negligent hire claim, fraud and related misrepresentation claims, and vicarious liability claims.  

The court reviewed the law requiring the Plaintiff to show that the employer was on notice of an employee’s propensity for misconduct.  As there was no such information pled in the Complaint or otherwise found in the record, the court granted Uber’s Motion to Dismiss.  However, as noted, the Plaintiff was allowed to amend the Complaint given the recent news that had come out that the driver in the incident had a prior criminal conviction.

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

Source: “Digest of Recent Opinion” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Aug. 14, 2018).