Court Addresses Various Pleadings Issues in a Medical Malpractice Case, Including Allegations of Recklessness

In the case of Limon v. Kontizer, No. 2025-CV-8657 (C.P. Lacka. Co. March 30, 2026 Powell, J.), the court addressed various Preliminary Objections filed by Defendants in a medical malpractice case.

According to the Opinion, this wrongful death medical malpractice case was filed relative to the Plaintiff’s decedent’s treatment in the form of an upper GI endoscopy. According to the Complaint, the Plaintiff alleged that the various medical Defendants failed to properly diagnose, treat, and prevent aspiration pneumonia, sepsis, and multi-organ dysfunction, all of which allegedly led to the Plaintiff’s decedent’s death.

In their Preliminary Objections, the Defendants sought the dismissal of claims for reckless conduct and punitive damages, as well as claims grounded in vicarious liability and negligence.

The court overruled all of the Preliminary Objections filed.

Relative to the claims of recklessness and for punitive damages, the court held that, under Pa. R.C.P. 1019(b), conditions of the mind, such as recklessness, may be alleged in a general fashion as long as negligence is pled.

The court additionally noted that the Complaint sufficiently asserted that the Defendants knowingly disregarded serious, life-threatening risk to the decedent. Accepting these allegations are true, the court concluded that the claims for punitive damages were legally sufficient.

With regards to the issues of vicarious liability, the court rejected the Defendants’ arguments that the Complaint was deficient for failing to identify specific agents or employees. The court noted that Pennsylvania law does not require a Plaintiff in a medical malpractice case to identify every individual agent at the pleadings stage. Rather, the court noted that it is sufficient to allege that the individuals acted within the scope of their employment or agency since the identity of every healthcare professional who was involved in the decedent’s treatment during the approximately one month period at issue could be readily ascertained by the Defendants from their own records.

The court further found that the Plaintiff sufficiently alleged that the Defendants had knowledge of, and allowed the alleged reckless conduct, thereby satisfying the heightened requirements for allegations of vicarious liability for punitive damages under the MCARE Act.

The court otherwise rejected the Defendant’s objections that the Plaintiff’s negligence claims were overly broad and vague.

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


Source: Lackawanna Jurist (April 10, 2026).

Superior Court Affirms Philadelphia Trial Court's Decision to Slash $25 Million Punitive Damages Award in Trucking Accident Case

In its non-precedential decision in the case of Clemmons v. Lehr, No. 1426 EDA 2024 (Pa. Super. Feb. 27, 2026 Olson, J., Dubow, J., and Beck, J.)(Mem. Op. by Olson, J.), the Pennsylvania Superior Court upheld a Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas decision to slash a $25 million dollar punitive damages award down to just $1 million dollars based on the “interests of justice and constitutional considerations.”

In its decision, the appellate court also found that questions remained regarding how much the Plaintiff should be awarded in this regard. The appellate court provided instructions to the trial court to re-evaluate its decision after finding that the trial court failed to consider all compensatory damages awarded, including for loss of consortium, when reviewing the validity of the punitive damages claim.

On appeal, the court noted that the current status of Pennsylvania law requires that, if a compensatory damages award includes a recovery for a claim of loss of consortium, the trial court must consider the entire compensatory award when assessing the ratio between the compensatory award and the punitive damages award entered by a jury.

In this case, a Philadelphia County jury returned an award of $26.2 million dollars, which included $25 million dollars in punitive damages, in a rear-end trucking accident case in which the Plaintiff claimed that he sustained injuries to his head, neck and back as a result.

On appeal, the Superior Court determined that the entry of punitive damages was warranted by the evidence presented but agreed with the trial court that the ratio between the punitive damages award and the compensatory damages award was unduly excessive. 

Pointing to the United States Supreme Court’s 2003 holding in the case of State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Campbell, in which the U.S. Supreme Court held that the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits “the imposition of grossly excessive or arbitrary punishment on a tortfeasor,” and that “few awards exceeding a single-digit ratio between punitive damages and compensatory damages, to a significant degree, will satisfy due process.” 

Here, the Pennsylvania Superior Court determined that the decision to reduce the punitive damages award to $1 million dollars based upon a 2:1 multiplier was incorrect because the trial court had only considered the $500,000.00 in compensatory damages awarded to the injured party Plaintiff and improperly excluded the $700,000.00 loss of consortium damages that was awarded to the wife from the calculations. The court noted that, in committing this error, the trial court erroneously inflated the ratio of the punitive damages award awarded.

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


Source: Article – “In Case With Slashed $25M Verdict, Pa. Appeals Court Wades Into Constitutionality Of ‘Excessive” Punitive Awards,” By Riley Brennan The Legal Intelligencer (March 2, 2026).

Court Allows Punitive Damages Claims to Proceed in Dog Bite Case

In the case of Clifford v. Dickson, No. S-1799-25 (C.P. Schuylk. Co. Feb. 12, 2026 Burke, J.), the court addressed various issues raised by way of Preliminary Objections filed against a Complaint in a dog bite case.

Of note, the court rejected the Preliminary Objection filed by the Defendant relative to the Plaintiffs’ description of the Defendant’s dog as “vicious.” The court noted that it did not see any prejudice from the use of the term “vicious” at this early stage of the proceedings.  The court did note that the use of the term “vicious” may not prove to be admissible at trial.

With regards to the Preliminary Objections filed with regards to the Plaintiff’s claims of outrageous conduct and evil motive, as well as with respect to the request for punitive damages, the court found that the facts pled in the Complaint supported the claims and allegations in this regard.

Here, the court found that the conduct of the Defendant was allegedly more than mere or ordinary negligence. In the Complaint, there were allegations that the Defendant acted in an intentional, willful, wanton, or reckless manner. More specifically, the court noted that there were allegations that the Defendant not only allowed her two pitbulls and another large dog to be unleashed, unrestrained, and uncontrolled on the day of the accident, it was also alleged that the Defendant dog owner had allowed this to happen on prior occasions as well.

The court also pointed to the allegations that the Defendant had failed to vaccinate the dogs in question.

The court additionally noted that it would be premature to dismiss the Plaintiff’s request for punitive damages at the pleadings stage. Rather, based, in part, on the Superior Court's decision in the case of Monroe v. CBH2O, LP, 286 A.3d 785, 799-800 (Pa. Super. 2022), the court felt that it would be more appropriate for the Defendant to seek to attempt to have the punitive damages claims dismissed after the close of discovery by way of a Motion for Summary Judgment.

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


I send thanks to Attorney Thomas J. Newell, a plaintiff's attorney who exclusively represents dog attack victims, for bringing this decision to my attention.

Source of image:  Photo by Pozva on www.unsplash.com.

Superior Court Refuses to Weigh The Evidence on Appeal

In its non-precedential decision in the case of Kopeissi v. Shipwire, Inc., No. 2789 EDA 2024 (Pa Super. Jan. 23, 2026 Lazarus, P.J., Bowes, J., and Ford Elliot, P.J.E.) (Mem. Op. by Bowes, J.), the court addressed post-trial motions in a matter in which the Plaintiff challenged the trial court’s denial of his request for a new trial on punitive damages.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff was allegedly injured when unloading pallets of Peloton weights from a tractor trailer that had allegedly been improperly stacked on top of each other.

At trial, the Defendant admitted that it had allegedly stacked the pallets did not contest that it acted negligently. Rather, its defense at trial was that it did not act recklessly.

At trial, the jury found that the tractor trailer company was not negligent. However, the jury found that the Defendant that had stacked the pallets and who had admitted negligence but denied recklessness was 80% negligent.  However, the jury found that the actions of that Defendant were not reckless.

After trial, the Plaintiff argued that the jury’s verdict on the issue of reckless was against the weight of the evidence. It was also argued that improper remarks during closing arguments prejudiced the jury and tainted their deliberations on the issue of recklessness.

On appeal, the Superior Court rejected both arguments.

Relative to the claim that the jury’s finding on the issue of recklessness was against the weight of the evidence, the Superior Court noted that the Plaintiff essentially wanted the Superior Court to re-weigh the evidence and come to a different result. The Superior Court noted that it was refusing to do so. The Superior Court otherwise noted that it found no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s conclusion that the jury’s verdict did not shock the trial court’s conscience.

As such, the denial of the Plaintiff’s post-trial motions was affirmed.


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

Trial Court Overrules Preliminary Objections to Allegations of Recklessness and Claims For Punitive Damages

In the case of Fisher v. Leo, No. 2025-CV-05941 (C.P. Luz. Co. Feb. 4, 2026, Pierantoni, J.), the court overruled a Defendant’s Preliminary Objections to allegations of recklessness and punitive damages. 

In so ruling, the court cited to the Pennsylvania Superior Court case of Monroe v. CBH20, L.P., 286 A.3d 785, 798 (Pa. Super. 2022).

The court also noted that the issue of the validity of claims for recklessness and punitive damages are more appropriate for consideration at the summary judgment stage.

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


I send thanks to Attorney Peter Biscontini of Biscontini Law for bringing this case to my attention.

Various Pre-Trial Motions in Limine Decided in Federal Court Trucking Accident Case

In the case of Kozak v. Klikuszewski, No. 4:21-CV-01609 (M.D. Pa. Nov. 5, 2025 Schwab, J.), the court decided a variety of Motions In Limine prior to a motor vehicle accident trial.

This matter arose out of an accident between the Plaintiff's car and the Defendant's tractor trailer during a snow squall on Interstate 80.   

Of note, the court denied the Defendant’s Motion for Bifurcation after finding that the Defendant offered no reason in support of bifurcation other that the Plaintiffs were claiming a serious injury. The court found this to be an insufficient reason to support a request for bifurcation.

The court also found evidence to support the claim to allow the punitive damages claims to go forward.

The court noted that, when there is a punitive damages claim against a supervisor, negligent supervision, hiring, and entrustment claims may also proceed.

The court additionally ruled that evidence of a driver’s past traffic citations and accidents was relevant to the Plaintiff’s claims for negligent hiring, retention, and entrustment. As such, that evidence was ruled as admissible.

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


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

As Currently Required, Court Follows the Fad of Allowing Claims of Recklessness Regardless of the Facts Pled

In the case of Tierney v. Miggy’s Corporation Six, No. 3632-CV-2025 (C.P. Monroe Co. Sept. 10, 2025 Zulick, J.), the court overruled a Defendant’s Motion to Strike allegations of recklessness and punitive damages from the Plaintiff’s slip and fall Complaint.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff alleged that she slipped and fell on a puddle caused by a leaky air conditioner at the Defendants’ grocery store and sustained injuries as a result. The Plaintiff also claimed, in part, that the puddle in question was caused by the carelessness, recklessness, and negligence of the Defendants. The Plaintiff additionally asserted a claim for punitive damages.

The court followed the current fad of courts allowing general allegations of recklessness to be pled as an allegation of a state mind under Pa. R.C.P. 1019(b). The court noted that the issue of the validity of the claims could be revisited after discovery at the summary judgment stage.

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


Source: The Legal Intelligencer Common Pleas Case Alert, www.Law.com (Nov. 20, 2025).

Court Strikes Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress Claim But Allows Punitive Damages Claim to Proceed In Premises Liability Case

In the case of Abda v. Keystone Klub Keyser Oak, LLC, No. 2024-CV-7649 (C.P. Lacka. Co. Nov. 20, 2025 Nealon, J.), Judge Terrence R. Nealon of the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas overruled a Preliminary Objection in the nature of a demurrer filed against the Plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages but sustained Preliminary Objections in the nature of a demurrer filed against the Plaintiff’s claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress in a personal injury case.

According to the Opinion, a customer at a skill-based games venue sued the Defendant entertainment lounge for negligence and sued its owner for assault and battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress after the owner allegedly attacked and injured the customer on the premises.

In support of his claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress, the customer alleged that the owner later used his vehicle to cause damage to the grounds of the customer's residence and shouted profanities at the customer’s minor son in the process.

In response to the Complaint, the owner Defendant filed demurrers, including with respect to the Plaintiff’s demand for punitive damages. The Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff failed to allege specific facts to support a finding of willful or wanton misconduct.

The Defendant also filed a demurrer against the claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress.

In his Opinion, Judge Nealon noted that claims of willful or wanton misconduct may be averred generally under Pa. R.C.P. 1019(b).

The court additionally held that a demand for punitive damages is not governed by the “material facts” pleading requirement found under Pa. R.C.P. 1019(a) because a demand for punitive damages does not constitute a “cause of action.” Instead, a demand for punitive damages is viewed merely as an element of damages that is incidental to an underlying cause of action.

Here, where the customer stated a prima facie claim for assault and battery against the owner and had generally alleged willful and wanton misconduct by the owner, the court found support for overruling the demurrer to the claim for punitive damages.

With respect to the claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, the court found that the Plaintiff’s Complaint did not describe conduct that was so outrageous in nature and extreme in degree so as to exceed all bounds of decency and be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized society. Accordingly, in the absence of such facts, the court sustained the Defendant’s demurrer to the claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress.

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

Judge Powell of Lackawanna County Addresses Plethora of Issues Raised in Medical Malpractice Matter

In the case of Doyle v. Keyed, No. 2024-CV-9036 (C.P. Lacka. Co. Oct. 16, 2025 Powell, J.), the court issued a decision denying various Preliminary Objections filed in a medical malpractice action arising out of the death of an infant during a complicated delivery.

Of note, Judge Powell of the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas overruled nearly all of the challenges submitted by the Defendants, including a request by Lehigh Valley Hospital-Pocono Defendants’ request to severe their case from the claims against the St. Luke’s Hospital Defendants.

The court additionally rejected one doctor’s claim that he could not be held vicariously liable for actions by the hospital staff that worked under him. The court noted that vicarious liability may attach in a medical malpractice case under the “captain-of-the-ship” doctrine or where the physician exercises actual control over the staff members.

The court noted that, because the Complaint in this matter alleged that the doctor at issue had directed and supervised others during the delivery, those allegations stated a viable theory of vicarious liability.

The court additionally upheld the Plaintiffs’ claims of direct and corporate negligence against various Defendants.

Judge Mark Powell
Lackawanna County

Judge Powell also overruled objections to the claim for punitive damages. The court found that the facts alleged could, if proven, constitute reckless disregard warranting punitive damages.

The court also noted that, given that mental state conditions may be alleged generally under Pa. R.C.P. 1019(b), such claims could survive the pleading stage.

The court also disagreed with the defense argument that childbirth procedures are not surgical acts requiring informed consent. The court noted that the allegations that the doctor failed to discuss surgical alternatives despite risk factors present stated a plausible informed-consent claim.

The court also allowed the Plaintiffs’ claims for negligent infliction of emotional distress to proceed. The court found that the Plaintiff-mother, having suffered a physical impact and having observed her child’s death, and the father, who witnessed the traumatic delivery and aftermath, both fit within the recognized categories of Plaintiffs permitted to pursue negligent infliction of emotional distress claims. In this regard, Judge Powell noted that observation of the results of negligent medical acts can satisfy the contemporaneous observation requirement in a medical malpractice context.

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

Source:  Lackawanna Jurist (Oct. 31, 2025).

Source of image: Photo by Samuel Ramos on www.unsplash.com.

Punitive Damages Claims Allowed To Proceed in Case Involving Fatal Trucking Accident at a Loading Dock

In the case of Feliciano v. Landstar Inway, Inc., No. 5:24-CV-00668-JMG (E.D. Pa. Aug. 15, 2025 Gallagher, J.), the court denied a trucking Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment on the punitive damages claims.

According to the Opinion, this fatality matter arises out of an incident during which the decedent died when he was struck by the Defendant’s truck and pinned against a loading dock at a warehouse. After suit was filed, the Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment the claims for punitive damages. The court allowed the punitive damages claims to move forward after finding that a reasonable jury could find that the Defendant employees acted with deliberate indifference in failing to prevent the accident from happening.

Reviewing the record, the court noted that, although the Defendant truck driver believed that he had fully engaged the brakes of the vehicle just prior to the accident, there was evidence that the Defendant driver did not engage the additional service brake while recognizing that the warning buzzer was going off indicating that the brakes may not have been activated and where that Defendant driver could not see where the Plaintiff was located. The court noted that, under such circumstances, a reasonable person could realize that someone could be significantly hurt in such a scenario. Accordingly, the court denied the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment.

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


Source – Article: “Estate Court Recoup Punitive Damages Following Tractor-Trailer Accident, Judge Rules,” By Riley Brennan of The Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Aug. 19, 2025).

Source of image - Photo by Elevate on www.pexels.com.

Federal Court Requires Pleading of Sufficient Facts to Support Claims of Punitive Damages

In the case of McKinney v. GM, LLC, No. 1:24-CV-00140-SPB (W.D. Pa. Aug. 28, 2025 Baxter, J.), the Western District Federal Court granted a partial Motion to Dismiss claims of punitive damages.

The court granted the Motion after finding that the Plaintiff failed to plead sufficient facts to support a punitive damages claim.

The court noted that recklessness that could support a punitive damages claim must involve more than claims of ordinary negligence. Rather, the conduct involved must be intentional and the risk substantially greater than that which is necessary for conduct to be negligent.

Here, the court found that the product liability Complaint contained no factual allegations identifying the nature of the alleged defect, how the Defendant alleged became aware of it, or what actions the Defendant failed to take in conscious disregard of that risk.

The court emphasized that punitive damages are to be considered an extreme remedy that are not available for conduct arising from mere inadvertence, mistake, or errors in judgment.

The court also noted that the Complaint failed to contain any factual allegations that even suggested that the Defendant acted with an evil motive or in conscious disregard of a known risk.

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.

Trial Court Drastically Reduces Punitive Damages Award

In the case of Clemmons v. Lehr, June Term, 2020 No. 0478 (C.P. Phila. Co. April 9, 2025 Bright, J.), the trial court addressed post-trial motions in a tractor trailer accident case, including a Motion for Remittitur relative to a punitive damages award of $25 million dollars. 

The jury otherwise awarded $1.2 million dollars in compensatory damages.

The trial court granted the Motion for Remittitur, holding that the amount awarded by the jury for punitive damages was unduly excessive and out of bounds as compared with the evidence.

In this regard, the trial court noted that the punitive damages award was approximately twenty-one (21) times the amount of the compensatory damages verdict. The court found that the punitive damages award was grossly excessive in comparison to the compensatory damages award.

The trial court reduced the punitive damages award to $1 million dollars.

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

Source: The Legal Intelligencer Weekly Case Alert, www.Law.com (Aug. 28, 2025).

Source of image:  Photo by Logan Voss on www.unsplash.com.

Trial Court Addresses Validity of Claims Against a Drugstore

In the case of Burke v. Hoffman Health Partners, P.C., No. 2024-CV-8753 (C.P. Lacka. Co. Aug. 4, 2025 Powell, J.), the court addressed various Preliminary Objections filed in a medical malpractice case.

In this matter, the Plaintiff alleged that she sustained severe injuries after being prescribed and dispensed a medication inappropriately. 

The Plaintiff sued the medical providers relative to the prescription of the medication. She also sued CVS, who allegedly filled the prescription without providing the required counseling, verifying the safety of the prescription, or reconciling what the Plaintiff alleged were inadequacies on the face of the prescription with the prescribing physician.

With regards to the claims against CVS, the court found that the Plaintiff had sufficiently alleged both vicarious and direct liability claims.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff’s Complaint alleged that the CVS agents failed to counsel the Plaintiff, ignored dosage red flags, and did not consult with the prescribing physician. The Plaintiff additionally alleged ischemic failures in the training, policy enforcement, and prescription review within CVS.

The court ruled that, under the facts alleged, such claims could rise to the level of reckless indifference and could warrant a claim for punitive damages. Accordingly, CVS’ Preliminary Objections were overruled.

The court otherwise overruled the preliminary objections asserted against by the medical Defendants against the punitive damages claims as well. The court held that the Plaintiff’s claims of misdiagnosis, discharged despite warning signs, and inadequate supervision of the Plaintiff as a patient, all supported direct claims and warranted the consideration of punitive damages.

The court did, however, sustain the Preliminary Objection filed by Geisinger Clinic to a claim for vicarious liability for punitive damages because the court found that the Complaint failed to allege that the clinic had actual knowledge of its agents’ conduct as required under §505(c) of the MCARE Act.

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


Source: Lackawanna Jurist Case Summary (Aug. 15, 2025).

Source of image:  Photo by Marques Thomas on www.unsplash.com.

Court Rules that Punitive Damages May Not Be Claimed for Post-Incident Conduct

In the case of Pavlik v. Smith, No. 2024-CV-09109 (C.P. Luz. Co. Aug. 1, 2025 Gelb, J.) the court denied a Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint in a dog bite case.

Of note, the court denied the Plaintiff’s efforts to file an Amended Complaint that would contain a claim for punitive damages for post-incident conduct by the Defendants relative to the dog bite incident.

The court noted that punitive damages are not available for post-incident conduct of a tortfeasor. In so ruling, the court cited, with “see” signals, the cases of Bert Co. v. Turk, 298 A.3d 44, 61 (Pa. 2023) (Explaining that the fact-finder may impose punitive damages for torts, as opposed to any post-incident conduct) and Feld v. Merriam, 485 A.2d 742, 748 (Pa. 1984) (Stating that “one must look to the act itself together with all circumstances when imposing punitive damages).

Anyone wishing to review this detailed Order without Opinion may click this LINK.

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.

Trial Court Gives Lessons on Medical Malpractice Complaint Drafting

In the case of Dawes v. The Williamsport Home, No. 2025-CV-00381 (C.P. Lyc. Co. June 6, 2025 Carlucci, J.), the court granted in part and denied in part Preliminary Objections filed against a Plaintiff’s claim in a medical malpractice case arising out of alleged negligent care regarding the Plaintiff’s thoracic surgical wound.

According to the Opinion, the court denied the Defendant’s demurrer to the Plaintiffs’ claim for punitive damages but still directed the Plaintiff to file an Amended Complaint which either deletes any claim for punitive damages or sets forth sufficient material allegations in support of the same.

Relative to any claims against any agents or employees of the medical Defendants the court directed that the Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint should limit allegations regarding the acts or omissions by a Defendant or its agent or employees to that conduct that the Plaintiff contends was a substantial factor in causing the Plaintiff’s injuries. In this regard, the court directed the Plaintiff to not include any extraneous allegations not pertinent to the causation issues. 

The court also required the Plaintiff to provide additional factual support and allegations on the claims for corporate liability.

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


Source: “The Legal Intelligencer Common Pleas Case Alert,” www.Law.com (Aug. 7, 2025).

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 Rules That Expert Testimony Not Required To Establish Defendant's Duty to Provide a Safe Workplace

In the case of Chirdon v. 3M Company, Inc., No. G.D. 22-16244 (C.P. Allegh. Co. March 24, 2025 Kline, J.), the trial court denied the Defendant’s post-trial motions in an alleged unsafe workplace trial involving allegations of asbestos exposure to a boilermaker.

According to the Opinion, the jury awarded $2.3 million dollars in compensatory damages and $1.5 million dollars in punitive damages against the Defendant employer.

In this Rule 1925 Opinion, by the trial court, the court addressed defenses raised with regard to statute of repose, the method in which the concept of outrageous conduct may be admitted into evidence at trial, issues regarding the bifurcation of the liability and punitive damages phases of the trial and challenges by the defense to the Plaintiff’s failure to utilize an expert to explain OSHA violations.

Notably the trial court rule that expert testimony was not required to establish the Defendant's duty to provide a safe workplace.  Rather, the court ruled that the duty to provide a safe workplace, as well as the applicable OSHA regulations were within the understanding of ordinary jurors.

Overall, the trial court ruled that the Defendant failed to meet the standard of review for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial.  As such, the Defendant's post-trial motions were denied.

Anyone wishing to review this decision may click this LINK.

I send thanks to Attorney Ken Behrend of the Behrend Law Group, LLC located in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania for bringing this case to my attention.

Source of image:  Photo by Sylvia Brazzoduro from www.unsplash.com.

Claims of Recklessness and Punitive Damages Allowed To Proceed in Premises Liability Case

In the case of K.H. v. Mill Run Campground, No. 2197 of 2023, G.D. (C.P. Fay. Co., March 10, 2025 Vernon, J.), the court denied Preliminary Objections filed by a Defendant on claims of recklessness and for punitive damages in a premises liability case. According to the Opinion, the case involved a young child who fell off a set of bleachers.

The court overruled the Defendant’s Preliminary Objections and held that, where a Plaintiff stated a cognizable negligence claim and generally averred that the Defendant acted with the state of mind necessary for an award of punitive damages, the Defendant’s challenge to these types of claims was premature such that the Preliminary Objections would be denied. The Defendant was advised that the issues could be revisited in a Motion for Summary Judgment after the close of discovery.

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


Source: The Legal Intelligencer Common Pleas Case Alert, www.Law.com (May 14, 2025).

Superior Court Overturns Trial Court's Allowance of Amendment of Complaint During Trial To Add Claim of Punitive Damages

UPDATE:  Under a July 31, 2025 Order, the Superior Court withdrew this decision and granted an argument en banc on the issues presented.

In the case of Bernavage v. Green Ridge Healthcare Group, LLC, No. 1576 MDA 2023 (Pa. Super. May 19, 2025 Bowes, J., Olson, J., and Stabile, J.)(Op. by Stabile, J.), the Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed the entry of a compensatory damages award by a jury after a medical malpractice trial but vacated the jury's award of punitive damages after finding that the trial court erred by allowing the Plaintiff to amend the Complaint during the trial to add the claim for punitive damages.

According to the Opinion, the underlying case involved two (2) trials, one under compensatory damages aspect of the case and a second, later trial limited to consideration of whether punitive damages should be awarded against the Defendants.

It was noted that, during the course of the first trial, the Plaintiffs moved for a directed verdict on the issues of negligence and recklessness. At that time, the Plaintiff also made a request to file an Amended Complaint to conform the evidence elicited at trial to the pleadings. The request for a directed verdict was denied but the Plaintiff was allowed to file an Amended Complaint to add allegations of recklessness and to include a claim for punitive damages. The court also severed the issues related to the punitive damages claim to be resolved at a second, later trial with a different jury.

After the jury in the first trial entered an award in favor of the Plaintiff, the pleadings were reopened by the trial court and the parties proceeded to conduct punitive damages discovery prior to the second trial.

There was then a second trial at which the jury entered an award of punitive damages.

Following the punitive damages trial, the Defendants filed various post-trial motions and, eventually, this appeal. A central issue on appeal was whether the trial court abused its discretion in allowing, in the middle of a trial and after the expiration of the applicable statute of limitations, the Plaintiff to amend the Complaint to add allegations of recklessness and the claim for punitive damages.

The Superior Court ruled that the amendment of the Complaint to allow for claims of recklessness was not barred by the applicable statute of limitations. The main rationale for the appellate court’s decision in this regard was that recklessness and gross negligence are not to be considered distinct causes of action separate and apart from claims of ordinary negligence.

However, the appellate court did find that the trial court’s decision, during the course of trial, to allow the Plaintiff to add a claim for punitive damages was improper as that resulted in an unfair surprise to the Defendants at that late hour of the case.

The appellate court noted that the record revealed that the Plaintiffs did not pursue a claim of recklessness during the course of discovery and only introduced the concept of recklessness for the first time during the course of the trial.

The Superior Court noted that the Plaintiff’s failure to develop the specific theory of recovery in the form of recklessness during the course of discovery was not, in this case, a mere technicality subject to being cured by an amendment of the Complaint to conform to the evidence at any point.  Rather, the Superior Court noted that the record in this case revealed that the Plaintiff had developed a theory of liability at trial that was substantively different from the theory developed by the Plaintiff during the course of discovery and as alleged in the original Complaint.

The Superior Court additionally noted that the Plaintiff had solicited the word “reckless” from witnesses during the course of a trial, which witnesses, in the eyes of the Superior Court, could not be expected to understand the legal significance of that term. The Superior Court noted that the witnesses’ use of the word “reckless” in their testimony was of no legal significance until the trial court subsequently permitted the Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint in which recklessness was then alleged for the first time.

Accordingly, the appellate court found that this matter did not involve simply an amendment of the pleadings in order to conform the Complaint to the evidence produced at trial. Rather, the Superior Court viewed this matter as involving an introduction of a new theory of recovery at a late date in the proceedings, which action was of the type that is frowned upon by the courts and which often results in a violation of the statute of limitations.

While the court found that the statute of limitations did not serve to bar the addition of a claim of recklessness under this set of facts and given that recklessness is only considered a state of mind in regards to a negligence claim, the Superior Court found that the unfair surprise to the opposing party from the late amendment served as grounds that should have compelled the trial court to deny permission to amend the Complaint. 

The Superior Court concluded that unfair surprise existed in this case “where a negligence Plaintiff, without explanation, withholds the precise theory of recovery until the latest possible time.” 

The court noted that, if, as the Plaintiff asserted, the facts of the Plaintiff’s original Complaint were sufficient to support a recklessness theory of recovery, then the Plaintiff should have developed that theory during the course of discovery. The Superior Court noted that, while it ascribed no motive to the Plaintiff in this case, it felt that, to reach a different conclusion, would be to invite negligence plaintiffs to withhold their theory of recovery, whether it is a negligence, gross negligence, or recklessness claim, until the last possible minute for the specific purpose of creating an unfair surprise to the opposing party. 

For these reasons, the Superior Court concluded that the trial court abused its discretion in permitting the Plaintiff to amend their Complaint during the course of trial to add a claim for punitive damages.

As such, the Superior Court affirmed the jury’s verdict relative to the award of compensatory damages but vacated the second jury’s award of punitive damages. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

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


I send thanks to Attorney Joseph T. (“Jody”) Healey of the Scranton, PA law firm of Cipriani &Werner for bringing this case to my attention.