Motion To Dismiss Granted in Favor of Lyft in Case Where Lyft Driver Assaulted Passenger

In the case of Matos v. Uber Technologies, Inc., No. 23-5038-KSM (E.D. Pa. Feb. 3, 2025 Marston, J.), the court granted a Motion to Dismiss filed by a ride share Defendant in a case where the Plaintiff passenger was assaulted by the driver.

The court noted that, under Pennsylvania law, a ride share Defendant is not automatically liable anytime a driver hired over its App commits an assault.

The Plaintiff was noted to have failed to pled prior bad acts of the driver that should have put the Defendant on notice of the driver’s alleged dangerous propensities as required to prove a claim of negligent hiring.

The court noted that evidence of prior automobile accidents by the driver are not proof of violent propensities.

The court additionally found that there was no independent action for respondeat superior under the facts alleged.

The court additionally found that the act of assault passengers was not within the scope of a ride share driver’s employment.

The court otherwise found that the Plaintiff did not allege facts sufficient to establish a duty to train a driver on something as elementary as not assaulting passengers.

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.

Validity of Punitive Damages Claims in a Trucking Accident Case Addressed

In the case of Decker v. Ramos, No. 15-CV-7078 (C.P. Lacka. Co. July 16, 2020 Nealon, J.), the court addressed a Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment in a trucking accident case. 

The Defendants sought to dismiss the tractor trailer driver as a named party since the employer admitted, for purposes of vicarious liability, that the driver was acting within the scope of his employment at the time of the accident. 

The court rejected this summary judgment request of the defense finding that, under the theory of respondeat superior, a primarily liable employee and a vicariously liable employer are not considered to be joint tortfeasors. The court also noted that the goal of vicarious liability is to provide a secondary fund of recovery if the employee-tortfeasor lacks the ability to pay. 

The court noted that Pennsylvania law permits an injured Plaintiff to sue both the primarily liable employee and the vicariously liable employer and to obtain a recovery from either party. The court stated that the defense did not cite any authority to the contrary involving cases where the employer concedes and agency relationship with the employee. As such, the Motion for Summary Judgment was denied in this regard. 

Judge Nealon also addressed other parts of the Motion for Summary Judgment raised by the defense seeking to secure a dismissal of punitive damages claims. 

On the one hand, the defense asserted that they were entitled to summary judgment on the punitive damages claims against the Defendant driver as the Plaintiff did not allege that the driver’s conduct at the time of the accident was reckless. Rather, the Plaintiff based their punitive damages claims against the Defendant tractor trailer driver on the single assertion that the driver had overstated his tractor trailer driving experience on his employment application. 

After finding that their record failed to show any evidence, or even any support for reasonable inference, that the driver knew or should have realized that there was a strong probability that harm to others may result to his misrepresentation on his employment application, the court held that there was insufficient evidence to sustain any punitive damages claim against the driver. As such, the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment was granted by the court in this regard in terms of any punitive damages claims against the tractor trailer driver. 

However, the court denied the Motion for Summary Judgment filed on behalf of the employer/trucking company with respect to the punitive damages claims after reviewing the evidence in the record in this regard. The court noted that, as noted, the record contained evidence that the driver exaggerated the extent of his prior tractor trailer experience on his employment application and there was also evidence that the trucking company allegedly failed to conduct any past employment investigation as required by federal regulations to verify the driver’s prior experience. 

It was also noted that there was evidence in the record that the employer allegedly disregarded industry standards by failing to terminate the driver, or at a minimum, compelling him to undergo remedial training after he was involved in his first preventable crash during his probationary period. It was otherwise noted that the subject accident was the tractor trailer driver’s third collision within his first month of employment with the company. 

The Plaintiff had also alleged in this matter that the employer ignored the federal requirements when the employer continued to allow the driver to operate its tractor trailers allegedly without first completing safety training that was clearly required by law. 

The court also confirmed that the Plaintiff had presented expert opinion evidence that the trucking company’s actions represented a recklessness indifference and reckless disregard to the safety of the motoring public. 

Based upon this evidence in the record, the court denied the defense Motion for Summary Judgment on the punitive damages claims asserted against the trucking company Defendant. 

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

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.

Vicarious Liability Claim Based on Negligence of Unnamed Hospital Agents Allowed

In the case of Walker v. Scranton Hospital Company, LLC, No. 2015-Civil-5103 (C.P. Lacka. Co. March 16, 2016 Nealon, J.), the court addressed Preliminary Objections in a wrongful death medical malpractice action alleging a failure to timely diagnose and properly treat a ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm.  

The Defendant-hospital filed Preliminary Objections seeking to strike the Plaintiff’s vicarious liability claim premised upon the negligence of unnamed agents, challenging certain allegations in the Complaint on the grounds of lack of sufficient specificity, and with respect to a demurrer to the Plaintiff’s corporate liability claim.  

In his Opinion, Judge Terrence R. Nealon of the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas denied the hospital’s Motion to Strike the vicarious liability claim based upon the negligence of unidentified agents after noting that the Pennsylvania Superior Court recently concluded an another matter that a principal may be vicarious liable for the negligence of agents who are unnamed within a Complaint or referred to as a unit.   The rationale behind this ruling is that the identities of the hospital’s agents who were involved with the decedent’s care should be reflected in the hospital’s own records and should, therefore, be known to the hospital.  

Judge Nealon also ruled that two (2) negligence allegations for “failing to use due care under the circumstances” and “failing to employ appropriate methods of quality assurance” were stricken for lack of sufficient specificity.   The court otherwise denied the hospital’s Preliminary Objections with respect to other allegations in the Complaint.  

Judge Nealon also ruled that, given that the Plaintiff stated a cognizable cause of action for the hospital’s alleged breach of its corporate duties to hire component physicians and implement adequate policies and procedures, the demurrer filed by the hospital Defendant as to the Plaintiff’s corporate liability claim was overruled.  

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision by Judge Nealon in the case of Walker v. Scranton Hospital Company may contact me at dancummins@comcast.net.

 

 

No Respondeat Superior Liability For Criminal Acts of Employees

In its recent decision in the case of Spitsin v. WGM Transportation, 2014 Pa.Super. 162 (Pa. Super. July 29, 2014 Ford Elliott, P.J.E., Lazarus, J., Wecht, J.) (Op. by Wecht, J.), the Pennsylvania Superior Court agreed that an employer was not liable for a cab driver’s assault of a non-paying passenger where the record revealed that the employee used excess and dangerous force in an effort to collect the fare.  

According to the Opinion, after a taxi ride, the Plaintiff attempted to flee and avoid paying a fare after a taxi ride when he was restrained by a bystander and then kicked and punched by the taxi driver.   The Plaintiff was transported to a nearby hospital where a diagnostic study revealed a hairline fracture of his jaw.  

The Plaintiff sued WGM Transportation, the employer of the taxi driver, on a theory of respondeat superior. 

The employer filed Preliminary Objections arguing that an employer was not liable for an assault and battery by an employee upon another as such conduct was beyond the scope of the employment.  The employer also noted that the employee committed an act involving the use of force which was excessive and so dangerous as to leave the employer totally without responsibility.

The trial court sustained the Preliminary Objections of the employer and dismissed the Plaintiff’s respondeat superior claim.   The Superior Court affirmed it.

Judge David N. Wecht
Pennsylvania Superior Court

In his Superior Court Opinion, Judge David N. Wecht reiterated the law of the doctrine of respondeat superior that an employer may indeed be liable for the acts of its employees committed during the course of and within the scope of employment.   The court noted, however, that where an employee commits an act involving the use of force which was excessive and so dangerous as to be totally without responsibility or reason, the employer was not responsible under such circumstances.  

According to the record, a bystander had restrained the Plaintiff as he attempted to flee and there was nothing in the record indicating that the bystander’s restraint was insufficient to keep the Plaintiff at bay until the fare could be collected by the taxi driver or until the police could be summoned to take control.  

The court agreed that, when the taxi driver punched and kicked the Plaintiff while he was being held on the ground and unable to defend himself, the taxi driver departed from the scope of his employment in that there is no evidence that the employer instructed its taxi drivers to attack restrained and vulnerable passengers who refuse to pay their fares.  

The Superior Court ultimately ruled that the trial court was correct in finding, as a matter of law, that the Plaintiff had failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted for vicarious liability against the employer under the circumstances presented.

Anyone wishing to read this Opinion in the Spitsin case may click this LINK  

It is noted that Pennsylvania Superior Court Judge David N. Wecht will be a featured presenter at the upcoming Tort Talk Expo 2014 set to take place on September 26, 2014 at the Mohegan Sun Casino in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania. 


Click HERE to view the Agenda for the CLE seminar and, if interested in attending, please click HERE to Register online, or contact me at dancummins@cmcast.net.