Motion To Dismiss Personal Injury Claims Against Lyft Denied

In the case of Doe v. Lyft, Inc., No. 2:23-cv-03990-KSM (E.D. Pa. July 19, 2024 Marston, J.), the court addressed a Motion to Dismiss filed by a transportation network company, Lyft, Inc., and its former driver in connection with an alleged sexual assault committed by the driver.  The court granted the Motion to Dismiss but allowed the Plaintiff the right to amend.  

In part, the court held that the Plaintiff failed to allege an actionable claim for negligent supervision where she alleged, for the first time in opposition to the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, that its driver was the subject of four prior passenger complaints.  The court allowed the Plaintiff leave to file an Amended Complaint to more specifically plead the negligent supervision claim.  

The court also found that the Plaintiff’s negligent undertaking claim failed for two reasons. First, the court found that the Plaintiff failed to allege that the Defendant undertook to protect her from its ride share driver.  While the Plaintiff seemed to link the Defendant’s provision of ride share services with a duty to protect her from harm as a rider, the Plaintiff did not allege a “specific undertaking” by the Defendant in that regard.  

Additionally, the court found that, even if the Defendant allegedly undertook a duty to protect the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff failed to state a claim for negligent undertaking because she asserted only that the Defendant should have provided additional safety features on its platform, not that it implemented its existing scheme negligently.  

Accordingly, the court dismissed the Plaintiff’s negligent undertaking claim.  However, this claim was dismissed without prejudice to the Plaintiff’s right to file an Amended Complaint.

The Plaintiff’s separate negligent misrepresentation claim broadly alleged that the Defendant falsely advertised itself as a safe rideshare option.  The court dismissed this part of the claim after finding that, to the extent the Plaintiff did allegedly identify actionable statements by the Defendant in its marketing materials, the Plaintiff still failed to plead facts suggesting that these statements were false and, as such, the Plaintiff had not stated a valid claim of negligent misrepresentation.  Although the court dismissed this claim as well, the Plaintiff was again allowed an opportunity to file an Amended Complaint.

The court also dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages, without prejudice.  The court allowed the Plaintiff the opportunity to replead those allegations should she have facts to support the same. 

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

Source “The Legal Intelligencer Federal Case Alert,” www.Law.com (Aug. 9, 2024). 

Source of above image: Photo by Thought Catalog on www.unsplash.com.

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).

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 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).

Liability of Employer for Negligent Supervision of Employee Who Engaged in Criminal Conduct Off Employer Premises

In his recent February 19, 2016 decision in the case of Doe v. Cruciani, No. 2012-CV-5920 (C.P. Lacka.  Co. Feb. 19, 2016 Nealon, J.), Terrence R. Nealon of the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas addressed a Motion for Summary Judgment filed by a Defendant employer to a Plaintiff’s tort action seeking compensatory and punitive damages against a plumbing supply business for negligent supervision of its employee who allegedly lured the Plaintiff’s minor daughter into his company-leased vehicle and allegedly entrapped the minor in that vehicle and allegedly had indecent contact with the minor.  

The employer filed a Motion for Summary Judgment asserting that it could not be vicariously liable under Pennsylvania law for its employee’s intentional and criminal acts that were outside the scope and course of the employee’s employment.  

Judge Nealon noted that the law required that, in order to succeed with the negligent supervision claim against an employer for injuries caused by the intentional or criminal conduct of an employee committed off of the employer’s premises and outside the employee’s scope of employment, a Plaintiff must demonstrate that (1) the employee was using movable property of the employer at the time of the conduct and, (2) the employer knew or in the exercise of ordinary care had reason to know, of the necessity and opportunity to exercise control over that employee.  

Judge Nealon denied the employer Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment with respect to the compensatory damages claims finding that evidence in the record confirm that the employee used the employer’s vehicle during the alleged assault.   Judge Nealon also noted that the record established that the employer knew that the employee, who previously owned the plumbing supply business, had been previously convicted ten (10) years earlier of indecent assault of a minor girl in his company vehicle and had been required to register as a sexual offender for ten (10) years.  

Accordingly, Judge Nealon ruled that, although the employer contended that they did not know if the need to move closely regulate or restrict the employee’s use of the company vehicle while not on the employee’s premises, issues of fact precluded the entry of summary judgment on the compensatory damages claim where reasonably prudent employer should have known of the necessity for exercises such control due to the potential for recidivism by a sexual offender.  

Judge Nealon also noted that, while there was ample evidence to sustain the Plaintiff’s punitive damages claim against the individual employee, summary judgment was granted in favor of the employer on the punitive damages claim as the record did not contain sufficient evidence that the employer had engaged in intentional, willful, wanton, or reckless conduct based upon its subjective appreciation and conscious disregard of the risk of arm to others.  Accordingly, the employer’s Motion for Summary Judgment on the punitive damages claim was granted.  

 

Anyone desiring a copy of this Opinion by Judgment Nealon may contact me at dancummins@comcast.net.