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.
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.