In the case of Thomas v. Orozco-Pineda, No. 3:24-CV-288 (M.D. Pa. Sept. 30, 2025 Mannion, J.), the court granted a partial Motion for Summary Judgment on a claim for punitive damages in a trucking accident case.
The court noted that the undisputed GPS data in the record established that the Defendant’s driver was not speeding at the time of the accident.
However, the court also noted that a witness testified at a deposition that the tractor trailer driver had been speeding moments before the accident.
Nevertheless, the court found that the witness's testimony did not establish a factual dispute sufficient to defeat the Defendant's summary judgment motion.
The court noted that where one party’s or witnesses’ version of events is blatantly contradicted by the record, such that no reasonable jury could believe it, a court should not accept or adopt that version of the facts for purposes of ruling on a Motion for Summary Judgment.
In addition to the GPS data confirming that the driver was traveling at or around 55 mph in a 65 mph speed limit zone at the time of the accident, the court stated that there was no other credible evidence of speeding.
The court additionally found that the "clean" road conditions did not support the Plaintiffs’ claims that even driving below the speed limit was too fast for the conditions. The court also noted that there was no reduced speed limit in effect at the time the accident occurred.
Accordingly, the court found that, given that there was no credible evidence of speeding on the part of the Defendants, the Plaintiffs had no factual basis for seeking punitive damages.
The court also ruled that, therefore, there was also no vicarious basis for punitive damages against the driver’s employer.
Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.
I send thanks to Attorney James M. Beck of the Philadelphia office of the Reed Smith law firm for bringing this case to my attention.
The court noted that where one party’s or witnesses’ version of events is blatantly contradicted by the record, such that no reasonable jury could believe it, a court should not accept or adopt that version of the facts for purposes of ruling on a Motion for Summary Judgment.
In addition to the GPS data confirming that the driver was traveling at or around 55 mph in a 65 mph speed limit zone at the time of the accident, the court stated that there was no other credible evidence of speeding.
The court additionally found that the "clean" road conditions did not support the Plaintiffs’ claims that even driving below the speed limit was too fast for the conditions. The court also noted that there was no reduced speed limit in effect at the time the accident occurred.
Accordingly, the court found that, given that there was no credible evidence of speeding on the part of the Defendants, the Plaintiffs had no factual basis for seeking punitive damages.
The court also ruled that, therefore, there was also no vicarious basis for punitive damages against the driver’s employer.
Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.
I send thanks to Attorney James M. Beck of the Philadelphia office of the Reed Smith law firm for bringing this case to my attention.
Source of image: Photo by Le Minh on www.pexels.com.
