Wednesday, September 10, 2025
Court Rules that Punitive Damages May Not Be Claimed for Post-Incident Conduct
In the case of Pavlik v. Smith, No. 2024-CV-09109 (C.P. Luz. Co. Aug. 1, 2025 Gelb, J.) the court denied a Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint in a dog bite case.
Of note, the court denied the Plaintiff’s efforts to file an Amended Complaint that would contain a claim for punitive damages for post-incident conduct by the Defendants relative to the dog bite incident.
The court noted that punitive damages are not available for post-incident conduct of a tortfeasor. In so ruling, the court cited, with “see” signals, the cases of Bert Co. v. Turk, 298 A.3d 44, 61 (Pa. 2023) (Explaining that the fact-finder may impose punitive damages for torts, as opposed to any post-incident conduct) and Feld v. Merriam, 485 A.2d 742, 748 (Pa. 1984) (Stating that “one must look to the act itself together with all circumstances when imposing punitive damages).
Anyone wishing to review this detailed Order without Opinion may click this LINK.
Tuesday, September 9, 2025
Monday, September 8, 2025
Trial Court Allows Claims of Recklessness and Punitive Damages to Proceed Where Defendant Driver Took Eyes Off Road Where Something Fell to the Floor of Vehicle
In the case of Lin v. Gutowski, No. 2024-CV-5659 (C.P. Lacka. Co. Aug. 11, 2025 Powell, J.), Judge Mark Powell of the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas overruled a Defendant’s Preliminary Objections seeking to strike claims for recklessness, punitive damages, and negligent entrustment in an alleged distracted driver motor vehicle accident case.
Judge Mark Powell Lackawanna County |
Relative to the allegations of recklessness, Judge Powell followed the current trend of allowing allegations of recklessness to be pled generally in cases where negligence has been alleged. With regards to the claims for punitive damages, the court noted that the Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant was distracted by an item that fell to the floor which caused him to remove his eyes from the road while approaching the intersection at a speed that was allegedly too fast for the conditions and while failing to yield to traffic where the Plaintiff was attempting to make a left hand turn.
The court found that the allegations presented by the Plaintiff rendered it unclear as to whether or not a jury could find that such conduct was reckless such that the claim for punitive damages could be supported. In so ruling, Judge Powell cited to a Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision in which it was stated that a more appropriate course of action under the circumstances would be to pull to the side of the road to retrieve the item.
The court otherwise noted that the allegations that the Defendant driver diverted his eyes from the road, in combination with the allegations that the Defendant was traveling too fast for conditions and that he failed to yield to other traffic on the roadway, all served to support the Plaintiff’s potential claim for punitive damages. The court noted that it was otherwise not clear and free from doubt as to the Defendant’s subjective understanding of the risk his conduct posted to the safety of others and whether or the Defendant carelessly disregarded those risks. Accordingly, the court allowed the claim for punitive damages to proceed.
In his decision, Judge Powell also outlined the current status of the law regarding negligent entrustment claims. After applying that law to the case presented, the court noted that the Plaintiff’s claims that the Defendant owner knew or should have known that the Defendant driver had a prior history of motor vehicle violations and that the Defendant driver would allegedly fail to operate the vehicle safely, that the Defendant driver had a propensity for speeding and driving while distracted and for ignoring the law, not only stated claims for negligence, but also supported claims of recklessness for which a jury may decide to award punitive damages. As such, the court also overruled the Defendant’s Preliminary Objections to the Plaintiff’s claims of negligent entrustment.
Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.
I send thanks to Attorney Stephen T. Kopko of the Anzalone and Doyle law firm in Wilkes-Barre, PA for bringing this case to my attention.
Thursday, September 4, 2025
Trial Court Gives Lessons on Medical Malpractice Complaint Drafting
In the case of Dawes v. The Williamsport Home, No. 2025-CV-00381 (C.P. Lyc. Co. June 6, 2025 Carlucci, J.), the court granted in part and denied in part Preliminary Objections filed against a Plaintiff’s claim in a medical malpractice case arising out of alleged negligent care regarding the Plaintiff’s thoracic surgical wound.
According to the Opinion, the court denied the Defendant’s demurrer to the Plaintiffs’ claim for punitive damages but still directed the Plaintiff to file an Amended Complaint which either deletes any claim for punitive damages or sets forth sufficient material allegations in support of the same.
Relative to any claims against any agents or employees of the medical Defendants the court directed that the Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint should limit allegations regarding the acts or omissions by a Defendant or its agent or employees to that conduct that the Plaintiff contends was a substantial factor in causing the Plaintiff’s injuries. In this regard, the court directed the Plaintiff to not include any extraneous allegations not pertinent to the causation issues.
The court also required the Plaintiff to provide additional factual support and allegations on the claims for corporate liability.
Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.
Source: “The Legal Intelligencer Common Pleas Case Alert,” www.Law.com (Aug. 7, 2025).
Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.
Source: “The Legal Intelligencer Common Pleas Case Alert,” www.Law.com (Aug. 7, 2025).
Wednesday, September 3, 2025
BRING YOUR CASE TO A CLOSE WITH CUMMINS MEDIATION
BRING YOUR CASE TO A CLOSE
DANIEL E. CUMMINS, ESQ.
570-319-5899
dancummins@CumminsLaw.net
Contact CUMMINS MEDIATION SERVICES to set up your Mediation to bring your case to a close.
Who better to get an insurance company to increase their award
than the writer of Tort Talk and
an insurance defense attorney trusted by carriers to get them out of trouble?
HERE'S A SAMPLING OF JUST SOME OF THE FIRMS
WHO PREVIOUSLY SECURED SETTLEMENTS AT MEDIATIONS WITH CUMMINS MEDIATION SERVICES:
HOURIGAN, KLUGER & QUINN
LENAHAN & DEMPSEY
ABRAHAMSEN, CONABOY & ABRAHAMSEN
POWELL LAW
CEFALO & ASSOCIATES
LAW OFFICES OF JAMES D. FAMIGLIO
FOLEY LAW FIRM
NEEDLE LAW
OSTROFF GODSHALL
FISHER & FISHER
BLAKE & WALSH
CAPUTO & MARRIOTTI
HAGGERTY, HINTON & COSGROVE
SLUSSER LAW
VINSKO & ASSOCIATES
BISCONTINI LAW FIRM
MECADON LAW
LAW OFFICES OF LEO JACKSON
SOBO & SOBO
MARKS O'NEILL, O'BRIEN, DOHERTY & KELLY
RAWLE & HENDERSON
POST & SCHELL
SWARTZ CAMPBELL
BENNETT BRICKLIN & SALTZBURG
CIPRIANI & WERNER
MINTZER SAROWITZ, ZERIS, LEDVA & MEYERS
SHAY, SANTEE, KELHART & DESCHLER, LLC
McCORMICK & PRIORE
THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER
SCANLON, HOWLEY & DOHERTY
MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN
MARSHALL DENNEHEY
ELLIOTT GREENLEAF
COLEMAN LAW OFFICES
PennDOT
SELECTIVE INSURANCE IN-HOUSE COUNSEL OFFICE
NATIONWIDE INSURANCE IN-HOUSE COUNSEL
TRAVELERS INSURANCE IN-HOUSE COUNSEL
Summary Judgment Granted in Water Park Ride Under "No-Duty" Rule
After reviewing the applicable law, which included the fact that, generally speaking, purveyors of theaters, amusement parks, or sports facilities have a “no-duty” rule to protect a party from injuries so long as the injuries suffered arose from a risk that was “common, frequent, and expected” of the situation.
The court ruled that, based upon the record before it, the Plaintiff has failed to allege or establish any conduct on the part of the Defendants that was not an inherent risk of utilizing a water slide.
In this matter, the Plaintiff admitted at her deposition that her raft flipped due to a sudden change in the water pressure, causing her to strike her shoulder on the side of the slide itself. The court noted that this is an inherent risk of water slides, where unexpected changes in water flow and the possibility of body parts colliding with the hard surface of the tube.
Given that the Plaintiff failed to show any other evidence of negligence and given that the Defendant had no duty to protect the Plaintiff from the “common, frequent, and expected” dangers of water slides, the court granted summary judgment.
Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.
Source: “The Legal Intelligencer Common Pleas Case Alert,” www.Law.com (July 10, 2025).
Tuesday, September 2, 2025
Who Bears the Burden of Proving a Plaintiff is Covered by the Limited Tort Option?
In this matter, on the issue of whether the Plaintiff was covered under the limited tort option or the full tort option, the record revealed that the only evidence in the case was that the Plaintiff testified at his deposition that he was unsure as to which coverage he selected.
The court ruled that, because the issue of the limited tort defense is considered an affirmative defense, Defendants bear the burden of proving a limited tort election. In this regard, the court cited to the case of Sanderson v. Cruz, U.S., 88 F. Supp. 2d 388, 392 (E.D. Pa. 2000). The court also noted that a Plaintiff’s uncertainty as to which coverage he or she may have selected is not determinative on the issue. In this regard, the court cited with a “see” signal Vaughan v. Williams, 725 EDA 2023, 2024 WL 1231352, at *3-5 (Pa. Super. 2024) (affirming trial court’s decision finding that Plaintiff elected limited tort as a matter of law, focusing its analysis on the signed tort election form and associated policy documents, as opposed to phone call transcripts and oral statements).
In this Opinion, the court noted that the Plaintiff’s decision to raise this limited tort election issue through a Motion In Limine rather than through an earlier a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, combined with the absence of the relevant insurance documents, rendered the resolution of this matter ill-time given that it was presented on the eve of trial.
As such, the judge denied the Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine to have the Plaintiff deemed to be full tort as a matter of law. Presumably, the defense was going to be permitted to present evidence a trial through an insurance representative as to the Plaintiff’s election of a limited tort choice.
In another decision of note in this Opinion, the court barred a Defendant in a rear-end motor vehicle accident from arguing at trial that the Plaintiff was not injured in the accident given that both parties had acknowledged, through expert testimony, that the Plaintiff had indeed sustained some form of injury.
Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK. The court's companion Order can be viewed HERE.
Source: “Article – “Defendant Can’t Argue Rear-End Crash Didn’t Result In Injuries, Pa. Fed. Court Rules Citing Defense Expert Report” By Riley Brennan The Legal Intelligencer (July 30, 2025).
Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK. The court's companion Order can be viewed HERE.
Source: “Article – “Defendant Can’t Argue Rear-End Crash Didn’t Result In Injuries, Pa. Fed. Court Rules Citing Defense Expert Report” By Riley Brennan The Legal Intelligencer (July 30, 2025).
Source of image: Photo by Niki Nikitaxnikin on www.pexels.com.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)