Judge Nealon of Lackawanna County Gives Guidance on Complaint Drafting

In the case of Baigis v. Thomas-Cooper, No. 2023-CV-2324 (C.P. Lacka. Co. Feb. 16, 2024 Nealon, J.), Judge Terrence R. Nealon of the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas continued the trend of trial courts and appellate courts overruling Preliminary Objections in the form of demurrers to claims of reckless conduct in motor vehicle accident matters where negligence has been alleged.

The rationale of these decisions remains that, under the express terms of Pa. R.C.P. 1019(a), a condition of the mind, such as an allegation of recklessness, may be averred generally in the pleadings.  As such, the demurrer by the Defendant to the claims of recklessness in this Baigis case was overruled.

In reviewing this issue, the court in Baigis referred to the analysis of the prior jurisprudence in this regard as set forth in “Pleading for Clarity: Appellate Guidance Needed to Settle the Issue of the Proper Pleading of Recklessness in Personal Injury Matters,” by Daniel E. Cummins, 93 Pa. B.A.Q. 32 (Jan 2022).

In another part of the decision, the court also overruled the demurrer asserted by the Defendants against a separate claim for punitive damages asserted by the Plaintiff.   While the court overruled the Defendant’s demurrer against the Plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages, the court did sustain an alternative objection to the Plaintiff’s listing of the punitive damages claims as separate counts in the Complaint. 

The court pointed to previous precedent confirming that a request for punitive damages does not constitute a cause of action in and of itself, but rather, is merely an incidental claim relative to a separate cause of action. Judge Nealon also noted that the appellate courts have otherwise stated that “no independent action exists for a claim of punitive damages since punitive damages is only an element of damages.”

This decision is also notable for the fact that the court ruled that since the mere issuance of a summary offense citation to a motorist as a result of a motor vehicle accident is not admissible in a civil action arising out of the same accident, a preliminary objection to the reference in the Complaint to the summary offense citations allegedly issued to the Defendant motorist should be sustained and such allegations stricken as impertinent matter under Pa. R.C.P. 1028(a)(2).

The court otherwise ruled that the Plaintiff’s separate allegations that the Defendant violated certain unidentified statutes, ordinances, or regulations would be sustained under Pa. R.C.P. 1028(a)(3) and Lackawanna County Local Rule 1019. The court did allow the Plaintiff to file an Amended Complaint in which the Plaintiff would have to provide specific citations for any alleged statutes, ordinances, or regulations allegedly violated by the Defendant.

Lastly, the court additionally sustained the Defendant’s Preliminary Objection under rule 1028(a)(3) to the Plaintiff’s bald allegations of actionable conduct “as shall be revealed in discovery.” The court found that these types of allegations were improper under the fact-pleading requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure.

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

Plaintiff Allowed to Proceed With Claims in Premises Liability Case That Decedent Passed Away From Exposure to Covid-19 Virus During Post-Accident Treatment

In the case of Corter v. Wal-Mart, No. CV-22-00100 (C.P. Lyc. Co. April 11, 2023 Linhardt, J.), the court sustained in part and denied in part various Preliminary Objections filed by Defendant Wal-Mart in a case involving allegations relative to a slip and fall matter that allegedly resulted in injuries that allegedly led to the Plaintiff’s death.

More specifically, the Plaintiff alleged that the decedent sustained multiple fractures during the course of his slip and fall injuries, as well as traumatic brain injuries, all of which required hospitalization. It was further alleged that the decedent was exposed to the COVID-19 virus during his hospitalization and in-patient treatment which allegedly caused and/or contributed to his death.

In one of its Preliminary Objections, Wal-Mart sought to strike, as scandalous and impertinent, allegations in the Complaint related to the Plaintiff’s alleged exposure to the COVID-19 virus during his post-incident treatment.

The court noted that the validity of these types of allegations turned on the issue of whether or not the Plaintiff had stated illegally cognizable claim of negligence against Wal-Mart. The court noted that, if the decedent’s death could not be attributed to Wal-Mart’s negligence as a matter of law, then the allegations that the decedent died, in part, due to exposure of the COVID-19 virus would be inappropriate and immaterial to the claims presented.

Judge Linhardt noted that, in this early stage of the litigation, the court could not conclude, as a matter of law, that Wal-Mart’s alleged negligence was not the legal cause of the decedent’s eventual death from COVID. As such, the court found that, at least at this stage of the litigation, allegations regarding the circumstances of the decedent’s death were neither scandalous nor impertinent.

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

I send thanks to Attorney Gary L. Weber, who is the Editor of the Lycoming Reporter and a member of the Williamsport, Pennsylvania law firm of Mitchell Gallagher, for bringing this case to my attention. 

Judge Munley of Lackawanna County Addresses Standard for Scandalous and Impertinent Matter in a Complaint

 In the case of Janiszewski v. Millville Mut. Ins. Co., No. 2021-CV-839 (June 2, 2021 Munley, J.), the court addressed Preliminary Objections filed by a Defendant in an insurance bad faith action in which the Defendants sought to strike internet reviews of the Defendant insurance company from the Complaint as scandalous and impertinent matter.   

After reviewing the record before the court in this property damage homeowner’s insurance claim, and applying the law relative to efforts to strike allegedly scandalous and impertinent information, the court denied the Defendant’s Preliminary Objections.   

In so ruling, the court cited to precedent confirming that, “[t]o be scandalous and impertinent, the allegations must be immaterial and inappropriate to the proof of the cause of action.”  See Op. at p. 4.

The court noted that, whereas here, the allegations in the Plaintiff’s Complaint are material, relevant, and supportive of the Plaintiff’s causes of action and where a Defendant cannot affirmatively show prejudice by the inclusion of the allegations, the allegations should not be stricken as scandalous or impertinent. 

As stated, the Preliminary Objections were denied here where the negative internet reviews that were referenced in the Complaint were related to denial of claims by the carrier, which the court felt would be material and pertinent to the Plaintiff’s bad faith causes of action contained in the Complaint at issue in this case.   

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

Source of Image: Photo by Andrew Neel on Unsplash.com.