Preliminary Objections To Punitive Damages Claims Sustained In Distracted Driving Case Where Texting Was Alleged

August 2018 

 Sean L. Phelan
Lucas and Cavalier, LLC  

	Sean L. Phelan

           In the recent case of Manning v. Barber, No. 17-7915 Civil (C.P. Cumb. Co. June 21, 2018), the Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas sustained a Defendant's Preliminary Objections regarding the plaintiff's allegations in support of punitive damages, even where the plaintiff's Complaint alleged the Defendant-driver had been texting at the time of the accident. According to the facts of the case, the plaintiff's vehicle had been completely stopped at a traffic light when the plaintiff's vehicle was rear-ended by Defendant. In addition to alleging the Defendant-driver was distracted at the time of the accident, plaintiff further specifically alleged that the Defendant acted "recklessly" by texting on her cell phone while driving.

           In sustaining the Defendant's Preliminary Objections to plaintiff's allegations in support of punitive damages, the Court asserted that the allegation of cell phone use alone, absent other specific indicia of recklessness, was not sufficient to establish a prima facie claim for punitive damages. The Court found that that the plaintiff's allegations of recklessness and the demand for punitive damages were improper due to the fact those claims were based upon largely boilerplate allegations that only constituted negligence. The Court also rejected plaintiff's argument that texting while driving should constitute "per se recklessness". However, the Court did leave open the door for appellate courts to conclusively decide upon this issue, especially in light of the recently enacted distracted driving law in Pennsylvania, which prohibits all text and electronic messaging while driving.  

 Analysis

           The holding of this case certainly supports the litigation strategy of aggressively filing preliminary objections in motor vehicle accident cases where a plaintiff sets forth general allegations in support of punitive damages, especially where said claims lack substantial indicia of "recklessness" or, of course, "intentional" or "wanton" behavior on the part of a defendant. Namely, by attacking plaintiff's claims in support of punitive damages, one can not only significantly reduce the settlement value of a case at the outset, but also limit the possibility of a plaintiff undertaking "fishing expeditions" during discovery, seeking information regarding the value of a defendant's business and other improper/overly broad information having little relation to the claims at issue.

         The attorneys at LUCAS AND CAVALIER, LLC continually monitor updates to these and other areas of law, and are available to answer any questions arising from this case.