Any Way You Slice It, New Causes of Action Cannot Be Stated Via Amendment to Complaint After Expiration of Statute of Limitations

In the case of Slice, Slice Baby, LLC v. Armetta, No. 2019-CV-153 (C.P. Lacka. Co. Nov. 8, 2024, Nealon, J.), the court addressed various issues in a case involving a dispute over issues regarding a lease agreement involving a pizza restaurant.

Among the issues addressed by the court was whether a Plaintiff may secure leave of court to amend the Complaint to assert new causes of action after the statute of limitations on the claims presented have expired.

In this case, the Plaintiff filed a motion seeking leave of court to amend the Complaint to assert five new causes of action and to include four additional Defendants.

Judge Nealon reviewed the case and the applicable statute of limitations and ruled that the limitations period had expired on four of the five new claims and, as such, those claims were not permitted. The court did allow the Plaintiff to assert a new cause of action for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing against one additional Defendant.

Relative to the Defendant’s Motion for a Judgment of Non Pros based upon the Plaintiff’s failure to litigate this action with reasonable promptitude, after reviewing the record before him, Judge Nealon noted that the Defendant had not identified any prejudice that the Defendant had suffered as a result of the Plaintiff’s lack of reasonable diligence in pushing this litigation ahead. As such, the Defendant’s Motion for Judgment for Non Pros was denied.

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

HAPPY THANKSGIVING

 

SENDING BEST WISHES TO YOU

FOR A

HAPPY THANKSGIVING

THANK YOU FOR READING AND CONTRIBUTING 

TO 

TORT TALK

Is There Liability Against PennDOT if a Tree Falls on a Passing Motorist?

In the case of Schmidt v. Pennsylvania Dept. of Transp., No. 33 C.D. 2023 (Pa. Cmwlth. Oct. 11, 2024 Jubelirer, P.J., Dumas, J., and Wolf, J.) (Op. by Dumas, J.), the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court reversed a trial court Order and remanded the case with instructions that summary judgment be entered in favor of PennDOT based upon sovereign immunity. 

According to the Opinion, the subject accident involved a Plaintiff who sustained fatal injuries after the branch of a large tree, which was overhanging the roadway, fell and crushed his vehicle as the Plaintiff drove by.

According to the Opinion, the tree was planted on property owned by the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority. The court noted that, although the branches of the tree extended over the road and PennDOT’s right-of-way, the base of the tree was located outside of PennDOT’s right-of-way.

Accordingly, the appellate court found that PennDOT was entitled to sovereign immunity under claims against it where the tree did not derive, originate from, or have as its source any PennDOT real estate.

The court held that the case therefore did not fall under the real estate exception to the sovereign immunity allowed for under the Sovereign Immunity Act, 42 Pa. C.S.A. §8501-8564.

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


Source: “The Legal Intelligencer State Appellate Case Alert,” www.Law.com (Nov. 5, 2024).

Source of image:  Photo by Efrem Efre on www.pexels.com.

Judge Mannion of Federal Middle District Court Allows Punitive Damages Claim to Proceed in Trucking Accident Case

In the case of Thomas v. Orozco-Pineda, No. 3:24-CV-00288-MEM (M.D. Pa. Nov. 8, 2024 Mannion, J.), Judge Malachy E. Mannion of the Federal Middle District Court of Pennsylvania addressed a Motion to Dismiss in which a trucking company Defendant asserted that a Plaintiff-spouse’s loss of consortium claim, presented in an Amended Complaint, was barred by the statute of limitations. The court also addressed a request by the Defendant for the dismissal of the Plaintiff’s punitive damages claims. The Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss was denied.

Relative to the argument by the Defendant that the Plaintiffs had presented a loss of consortium claim in the Amended Complaint after the statute of limitations had expired, the court found that there were issues of fact that needed to be resolved before the statute of limitations issue could be determined. 

With regard to the Defendants’ argument that there were no factual disputes to resolve with regards to the statute of limitations barring the loss of consortium claim, Judge Mannion disagreed and concluded that “factual disputes or the lack thereof are also issues to be determined on a Motion for Summary Judgment not a Motion to Dismiss.”

Relative to the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss the Plaintiffs’ punitive damages claims, the court also found this motion to be premature at the current stage of the litigation.

Judge Mannion noted that the courts of Pennsylvania have routinely denied requests to dismiss punitive damages claims in motor vehicle accident cases at the outset of litigation. The court noted that, as a general rule, the courts have deemed motions to dismiss punitive damages claims as premature and inappropriate where, as here, Complaint contains allegations of reckless conduct.

Judge Mannion additionally noted that, because the question of whether punitive damages are proper often turns on a defendant’s state of mind, i.e., the elements of malice or ill will required for punitive damages claims, the court found that question of whether the punitive damages claim should be dismissed cannot be resolved on the pleadings alone but must wait until the development of a full factual record through discovery or at trial.

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

Source: Article – “Judge Leaves Statute of Limitations Question In Injury Crash Suit For A Jury.” By: Riley Brennan Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Nov. 12, 2024).

Source of image:  Photo by Caleb Ruiter on www.unsplash.com.

Delay Damages Claim Denied Based on Technical Defect to Delay Damages Motion

In a case of first impression in the case of Arreguin v. Kinsing, No. 889 EDA 2023 (Pa. Super. Nov. 5, 2024 Stabile, J, Dubow, J., and Sullivan, J.) (Op. by Sullivan, J.) (Stabile, J., dissenting), the Pennsylvania Superior Court ruled that a trial court’s finding that a Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the mandate of the delay damages Rule found at Pa. R.C.P. 238, requiring that a Motion for Delay Damages begin with a required Notice to the Defendant, should be affirmed.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff secured a non-jury trial verdict in the amount of $4.1 million dollars and then filed a Motion for Delay Damages.

Although the Motion for Delay Damages was timely filed, the trial court denied the Motion on a technicality where the Plaintiff did not follow the mandate of Rule 238(c) that the motion begin with the following notice to the Defendant: “You are hereby notified to file a written answer to the attached Motion for Delay Damages within twenty (20) days from the filing of the motion or the delay damages sought in the motion may be added to the verdict or decision against you.”

The Superior Court agreed with the trial court that the wording of Rule 238(c) unambiguously required that the “[t]he motion shall begin with the following notice.”  The Rule then includes the exact language and form for the mandated Notice.

In this case, the Plaintiff did not dispute the fact that she failed to attach the mandated Notice. Moreover, the court noted that the Plaintiff did not argue that the “shall” in the rule was ambiguous.

The Superior Court rejected the Plaintiff’s argument that the Rule’s plain language should be disregarded and that the court should instead look at the intent of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court enacting the delay damages Rule. The Plaintiff asserted that the intent of the Rule was to protect defendants from plaintiffs who seek delay damages without giving notice.

The Superior Court rejected the Plaintiff’s argument after finding that the Rule was unambiguous and did not require additional statutory construction.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.  Judge Stabile's Dissenting Opinion can be viewed HERE.


Source: Article – “Pa. Court Denies Procedurally Deficient Request for Delay Damages in $4.1M Personal Injury Verdict.” By Rily Brennan Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Nov. 6, 2024).

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

Trial Court Confirms that Defendant Must Plead Facts In Support of New Matter Defenses Asserted

In the case of Kieser v. Beyer, No. CV23-00,923 (C.P. Lyc. Co. Sept. 11, 2024 Lindhardt, J.), the court addressed Preliminary Objections filed against a Defendant’s New Matter in a medical malpractice action.
The court sustained the Preliminary Objections in part and overruled the Preliminary Objections in part.

The court found that one paragraph of the New Matter, when read with another paragraph, properly asserted that the medical system Defendant had no control over a doctor who allegedly caused the Plaintiff’s injuries. As such, that paragraph of the new matter was allowed to stand. 

However, the court ruled that other paragraphs in the New Matter that asserted affirmative defenses of contributory/comparative negligence, assumption of the risk, release, accord and satisfaction, or set off and/or that the Plaintiffs’ damages were caused by the natural progression of the Plaintiff’s medical condition were all struck for failure to plead any facts in support of those alleged defenses.

In so ruling, the court provided a detailed review of the current status of the law regarding the pleading of a New Matter as set forth under Pa. R.C.P. 1030 and otherwise. The court reiterated the general rule that Pennsylvania is a fact-pleading state and that the inquiry into the sufficiency of pleading involves a question of whether material facts on which a cause of action or a defense has been stated in a concise and summary form in the pleading.

As noted, the court issued a decision in this case that allowed certain defense raised in the New Matter to stand but not others due to the lack of supporting factual allegations. In striking the improper New Matter defenses, the court did allow the Defendants at issue to file an Amended Answer and New Matter.

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


Source: The Legal Intelligencer Common Pleas Case Alert. www.Law.com (Oct. 30, 2024).

Trial Court Addresses Joinder of Additional Defendants in a Medical Malpractice Case

In the case of Gilbert v. UMPC Williamsport, No. CV-21-00,169 (C.P. Lyc. Co. Sept. 16, 2024 Lindhardt, J.), the court overruled Preliminary Objections filed by Additional Defendants relative to their joinder into this medical malpractice matter.

In so ruling, the court noted that, in this case involving alleged improper and negligent pre- and post-natal treatment to the Plaintiff and her child, the joinder of the Additional Defendants would be allowed where the statutes of limitations on the claims presented would not expire until several years in the future and, some of which, had not yet begun to run.

The court also noted that allowing the joinder to proceed would be the most sensible approach on the case presented in terms of judicial economy and other interests.

The court additionally found that the allegations in the Joinder Complaint were sufficiently clear to enable the Additional Defendants to prepare their defenses.

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


Source: The Legal Intelligencer Common Pleas Case Alert. www.Law.com (Oct. 30, 2024).