Punitive Damages Claims Allowed To Proceed in Case Involving Fatal Trucking Accident at a Loading Dock

In the case of Feliciano v. Landstar Inway, Inc., No. 5:24-CV-00668-JMG (E.D. Pa. Aug. 15, 2025 Gallagher, J.), the court denied a trucking Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment on the punitive damages claims.

According to the Opinion, this fatality matter arises out of an incident during which the decedent died when he was struck by the Defendant’s truck and pinned against a loading dock at a warehouse. After suit was filed, the Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment the claims for punitive damages. The court allowed the punitive damages claims to move forward after finding that a reasonable jury could find that the Defendant employees acted with deliberate indifference in failing to prevent the accident from happening.

Reviewing the record, the court noted that, although the Defendant truck driver believed that he had fully engaged the brakes of the vehicle just prior to the accident, there was evidence that the Defendant driver did not engage the additional service brake while recognizing that the warning buzzer was going off indicating that the brakes may not have been activated and where that Defendant driver could not see where the Plaintiff was located. The court noted that, under such circumstances, a reasonable person could realize that someone could be significantly hurt in such a scenario. Accordingly, the court denied the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK. The Court's companion Order can be viewed HERE.


Source – Article: “Estate Court Recoup Punitive Damages Following Tractor-Trailer Accident, Judge Rules,” By Riley Brennan of The Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Aug. 19, 2025).

Source of image - Photo by Elevate on www.pexels.com.

Federal Court Requires Pleading of Sufficient Facts to Support Claims of Punitive Damages

In the case of McKinney v. GM, LLC, No. 1:24-CV-00140-SPB (W.D. Pa. Aug. 28, 2025 Baxter, J.), the Western District Federal Court granted a partial Motion to Dismiss claims of punitive damages.

The court granted the Motion after finding that the Plaintiff failed to plead sufficient facts to support a punitive damages claim.

The court noted that recklessness that could support a punitive damages claim must involve more than claims of ordinary negligence. Rather, the conduct involved must be intentional and the risk substantially greater than that which is necessary for conduct to be negligent.

Here, the court found that the product liability Complaint contained no factual allegations identifying the nature of the alleged defect, how the Defendant alleged became aware of it, or what actions the Defendant failed to take in conscious disregard of that risk.

The court emphasized that punitive damages are to be considered an extreme remedy that are not available for conduct arising from mere inadvertence, mistake, or errors in judgment.

The court also noted that the Complaint failed to contain any factual allegations that even suggested that the Defendant acted with an evil motive or in conscious disregard of a known risk.

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.

LACKAWANNA PRO BONO ANNUAL GALA SET FOR NOVEMBER 6TH

 

IT'S THE LAST QUARTER....BRING YOUR CASE TO A CLOSE WITH CUMMINS MEDIATION

Has Tort Talk streamlined your research and saved you time?

Have you benefited from finding and downloading a case on Tort Talk you might not have otherwise found?  

Has a decision by Judge Nealon that you found on Tort Talk laid out the law for your Brief?

Has a case you found on Tort Talk helped you to win an argument (or at least gave you hope that you had a chance at prevailing)?

Hoping you have realized one or more of these benefits over the years from a case or two on Tort Talk.

For other benefits, including a favorable resolution of your cases to the great satisfaction of your clients, please consider scheduling a Mediation 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 in bad cases?

HERE'S A SAMPLING OF JUST SOME OF THE FIRMS

WHO HAVE 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

Superior Court Addresses Parameters of a Covid-19 Exposure Case Under the PREP Act

In the case of Boyle v. Meyer, No. 1212 WDA 2024 (Pa. Super. Sept. 9, 2025 McLauglin, J., Lane, J., and Bender, P.J.E.) (Op. by Lane, J.), the Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed a trial court Order denying a Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings in the Plaintiff’s personal injury suit alleging negligent exposure to COVID-19 due to a physical therapist use of inadequate safety measures.

In this case, the court reviewed the parameters of the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act, 42 U.S.C. §247d-6d, also known as the PREP Act.

The Defendants sought judgment on the pleadings under the PREP Act and asserted that, due to the fact that the Defendant therapist wore a surgical mask, which was allegedly a covered countermeasure approved pursuant to emergency FDA authorizations during the COVID-19 public health emergency. The Defendants were entitled to statutory immunity under the Act.

The court denied the Motion finding various issues of fact relative to the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. More specifically, the court noted that the issues of fact as to whether the type of surgical mask utilized by the therapist met the FDA requirements to qualify as a covered countermeasure under the PREP’s Act applicable emergency use authorizations.

The court also found issues of fact as to whether the Defendants qualified as “covered persons” under the PREP Act. 

The court additionally noted that there were causation issues that should be left for a jury to decide.

Given these issues of fact, the court affirmed the trial court’s denial of the Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.

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


Source: The Legal Intelligencer State Appellate Case Alert, www.Law.com (Sept. 23, 2025).

CLE SET FOR THIS WEDNESDAY -- PROCEED WITH CAUTION: INCORPORATING AI INTO YOUR PRACTICE

NEED CLE CREDITS?   

Please consider registering for the below ZOOM CLE set for this Wednesday, October 15, 2025 at noon being presented by myself and my son, Michael.  

Michael, who has been described by a professor of his as a "generational talent" in the field of AI, is a Computer Science and Philosophy major who is focusing on AI studies at Ursinus College in Collegeville, PA just outside of Philadelphia.  Back in high school, he was also his class's Salutatorian, and a two-time State Champion in high school mock trial with the Abington Heights High School Mock Trial Team.

During this ZOOM CLE seminar, at which you can sit back and you enjoy your lunch at your desk or in the comfort of your home, Michael and I will review the increasing use of AI in the practice of law and will offer advice on pitfalls to avoid.

This CLE will contribute towards your meeting the ethical requirement under RPC 1.1 to keep up with the technological changes in society that can impact your ability to represent your individual clients.

The ZOOM CLE is free for members of the Wilkes-Barre Law and Library Association.  Non-members may also register to attend for a small fee.

Details on how to register for THIS WEDNESDAY'S October 15th CLE are set out below.

THANK YOU for considering!! 

Federal Court Allows Civil Rights Claim to Proceed Regarding Fatal Fire Case

In the case of McDonald v. Philadelphia Housing Authority, No. 24-CV-0057 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 18, 2025 Quinones Alejandro, J.), the court granted a Motion to Dismiss a state-created danger claim but denied civil rights claims asserted against the Philadelphia Housing Authority in a case involving a fatal fire.

According to Opinion, this civil rights action arose out of the deaths of twelve (12) individuals following a fire at a residential apartment building owned and managed by the Philadelphia Housing Authority. Among the allegations was an allegation that the Defendant did not have any working smoke detectors in the building at the time, a fact that was allegedly known by certain employees of the Defendant. The Plaintiffs alleged that, because of the lack of working smoke detectors, the occupants of the building were not alerted to the fire until it was too late.

After reviewing the record before the court, the judge dismissed the Plaintiff’s claims of a state-created danger.

However, the court denied the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss the Plaintiffs’ claims of municipal liability under the civil rights act. The court rejected the Defendants’ argument that the civil rights claims should be dismissed on the grounds that the state-created danger claims were dismissed.

The court emphasized that the Plaintiffs’ civil rights claims were different from the state-created danger claims and had different requirements. Accordingly, the court found that the City’s sole reliance on the court’s dismissal of the state-created danger claims as the basis for its requested dismissal of the civil rights claims was misplaced.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.  The Court's companion Order can be viewed HERE.


Source – Article: “Judge Rejects City’s Efforts To Toss Liability Claims for Phila. Fatal Apartment Fire.” By Nicholas Malfitano of The Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Aug. 20, 2025).