Punitive Damages Claims Allowed to Proceed in Northampton County Trucking Accident Case

In the Northampton County Court of Common Pleas case of Scarpone v. Seaton, No. C-48-CV-2016-1965 (C.P. North. Co. Aug. 1, 2016 Roscioli, J.), the court allowed punitive damages to proceed beyond Preliminary Objections against a Defendant driver and his employer in a trucking accident case.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff pled in the Complaint that the Defendant driver was driving a freightliner at an excessive rate of speed in an urban area and ran a red light at the time of the accident.

The Defendant filed Preliminary Objections against the tractor trailer driver and his employer.

The Court overruled the Preliminary Objections after finding that the facts pled were sufficient to support claims for punitive damages against the Defendant tractor trailer driver.

The Court also allowed the punitive damages claims to proceed against the driver's employer.  The court noted that punitive damages could proceed under the facts alleged on both the vicarious liability claims as well as direct liability claims against the trucking company relative to alleged negligent training and/or supervision.

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

Summary Judgment Denied In Lackawanna County Premises Liability Case

In his recent Opinion in the case of Gunsior v. K Investments, et.al., No. 2011-CV-4742 (C.P. Lacka. Co. May 25, 2016 Minora, S.J.), Lackawanna County Senior Judge Carmen D. Minora addressed a summary judgment motion filed by Defendant Quaker Steak and Lube restaurant in a slip and fall matter.  

Defendant Quaker Steak first asserted that it was entitled to summary judgement in that the injured Plaintiff, initially a business invitee, should be legally determined to be a trespasser after improperly exiting premises over a guardrail and through landscaping.   The Defendant asserted that, as such conduct was not authorized, the only duty owed to the alleged Plaintiff was that the landowner avoid willful or wanton misconduct towards alleged trespassers.    

After reviewing premises liability law regarding the status of the injured party plaintiffs (trespasser, licensee, invitee) and the duty of care owed to different types of plaintiffs, Judge Minora noted that, generally speaking, the determination of whether or not a person is a trespasser, licensee, or a business invitee, is one of fact typically left for a jury’s determination.   The court found that issues of fact in this regard precluded the court from entering summary judgment.  

As a second basis for its Motion for Summary Judgment, Quaker Steak asserted that the Plaintiff chose a route to the parking lot which was unsafe as opposed to the safer alternative route that the Plaintiff had previously used to enter the premises earlier.   In this regard, Quaker Steak asserted the Plaintiff’s comparative negligence as a result of this choice of route barred the Plaintiff recovery.  

The court likewise found that issues of fact prevented it from entering summary judgment in this regard. 

Anyone wishing to review this decision may click this LINK.

Summary Judgment Denied on Vicarious Liability Issues in Shooting Case

In his recent Opinion in the case of Rogers v. Thomas, No. 12-CV-1464 (C.P. Lacka. Co. July 18, 2016 Nealon, J.), Judge Terrence R. Nealon of the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas denied Motion for Summary Judgment in a shooting case on issues of whether or not a father and the father’s sporting goods business was vicarious liable for a shooting death caused by the father’s son as a result of a fatal shooting.  

The court found issues of fact precluding the entry of summary judgment against the father and/or the sporting goods business Defendants.  

This Opinion provides a thorough review of the law pertaining to vicarious liability for criminal acts of third persons in the employment of others.  

The Opinion also reviews the parameters under which information gathered a deposition in which the shooter Defendant repeatedly asserted his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination in support of a Motion for Summary Judgment.  

Anyone wishing to review this decision by Judge Nealon may click this LINK.

Pennsylvania Superior Court Affirms Four Year Statute of Limitations for UM Claims [Non-Precedential]

In its non-precedential Memorandum and Opinion in the case of Erie Insurance Exchange v. Bristol, No. 1119 EDA 2015  (Pa. Super. May 7, 2016) (Op. by Olson, J.)[Non-precedential], the Pennsylvania Superior Court again affirmed that the statute of limitations for a uninsured motorist claim was four (4) years.  

Notable, the court also confirmed that a Plaintiff must file a Petition to Compel Arbitration to toll the statute of limitations in a matter that is languishing in which the parties do not agree to a neutral arbitrator.    

In ruling on the above issues, the court relied upon the precedential case of Hopkins v. Erie Insurance Exchange, 65 A.3d 452 (Pa. Super. 2013).  

Note, however, that Judge Ott concurred in the Opinion, asserting that the language addressing the tolling of the statute of limitations for uninsured motorist benefits claims in the Hopkins case was dicta.  Judge Ott recommended announcing a clear rule of law outlining the requirement of filing a Petition to Appoint an Arbitrator and Compel Arbitration in order to toll the statute of limitations.   

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

 

Judge Ott's concurring Opinion can be viewed HERE.

 

Source:  “Digest of Recent Opinions.”  Pennsylvania Law Weekly (June 21, 2016). 

Dauphin County Court of Common Pleas Addresses Timing of Facebook Discovery

An interesting Facebook Discovery decision was handed down Judge Andrew H. Dowling by Order only in the Dauphin County case of Vogelsong v. Cruz-Ramirez, No. 2015-CV-234 CV (C.P. Dauph. Co. July 29, 2016 Dowling, J.).

According to information gathered on the case, the issue before the court was whether defense counsel had to provide to Plaintiff's counsel, in response to Plaintiff's specific discovery request, all social media investigation completed on the Plaintiff before her deposition.

Judge Andrew Dowling of Dauphin County ordered the defendants to provide all social media research or investigation including Facebook, Linkedln, Twitter, You Tube, Instagram,Tumblr or any other similar research. The defendants' objection that this investigation is the same as surveillance and should not be produced until after plaintiff's deposition was overruled. The defense objection that it was work product was also overruled.

In its Order the court did also hold that the defense did not need to produce video surveillance completed on the Plaintiff prior to her deposition. 

Anyone wishing to review this Order, may click this LINK.

I send thanks to Attorney Robert Claraval of the Claraval Law Office in Harrisburg, PA for bringing this case to my attention.

Elements of a Proper Declaratory Judgment Action Discussed by Judge Sklarosky of Luzerne County

In his recent decision in the case of Gorzkowski v. Modern Gas Sales, Inc., No. 14465 of 2013 aff’d in non-precedential decision No. 163 M.D.A. 2015 (Pa. Super. 2015), Judge Joseph Sklarosky, Jr. of the Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas addressed the law regarding proper declaratory judgment actions and sustained Preliminary Objections in the nature of a demurrer against a declaratory judgment Complaint.  

This matter arose out of a dispute over the ownership of certain stock certificates which was made part of a declaratory judgment action.   The Defendant filed Preliminary Objections in the nature of a demurrer.  

Judge Sklarosky noted that declaratory judgment actions serve as judicial searchlights switched on at the request of a litigant to illuminate an allegedly existing legal right, status or other relation.   Noting that the law allows a party to seek a declaratory judgment in order to declare the legal rights, duties, or status of the parties to an action only if such a judicial declaration will aid in the determination of a genuine justiciable controversy.  

Stated otherwise, the court found that a declaratory judgment will not be allowed to determine rights in anticipation of an event uncertain to occur.  

Finding that no actual controversy existed or was imminent or inevitable, the court granted the Defendant’s demurrer to the declaratory judgment Complaint filed.   In so ruling, the court declined to essentially render an advisory opinion on the declaratory judgment Complaint which may ultimately prove to be purely academic given that the underlying anticipated events at issue may never occur.  

As noted above in the citation, Judge Sklarosky’s Opinion was affirmed on appeal in a non-precedential decision by the Pennsylvania Superior Court. 

Anyone wishing to review Judge Sklarosky’s trial court Opinion may contact me at dancummins@comcast.net.

Punitive Damages Claims Allowed to Proceed in Northampton County Cell Phone Case

A cell phone punitive damages decision from back in December of 2015 has been brought to my attention in the form of Paszkowki v. Kleintop, No. C-48-CV-2014-11600 (C.P. Northampton Co. Dec. 11, 2015 Roscioli, J.).

In Paszkowski, the Plaintiff included a claim for punitive damages in the Complaint based upon allegations that the Defendant driver was traveling at a high rate of speed in heavy traffic while distracted by cell phone use for an extended period of time whereby the Defendant failed to notice stopped vehicles at a red light in clear view of the Defendant at the time of the collision.  The Plaintiff further alleged that the Defendant engaged in such conduct while aware of the dangers of doing so.

After reviewing the general rules pertaining to valid punitive damages claims, after acknowledging that other courts have dismissed punitive damages allegations in cases where a Plaintiff has more simply alleged that a defendant driver was using a cell phone at the time of the accident, particularly for a telephone conversation, the court here nevertheless found that the Plaintiff had pled sufficient additional facts to allow the punitive damages claim to proceed forward.

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

I send thanks to Attorney Ralph Bellafatto of the Bellafatto Law Office in Easton, PA for bringing this decision to my attention.