Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-2654 JOSHUA PAYNE, Plaintiff v. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS SCOTT WHALEN, ADAM S. HUBER, OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT JOHN DOE and JANE DOE, Defendants 2014-02654 CIVIL TERM IN RE: CROSS MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT PLACEY, C.P.J. ___ MARCH 2018 PROCEDURAL HISTORY Plaintiff filed a Complaint in May 2014 that claimed breach of contract, negligence, and sought punitive damages. The trial court sustained Defendant’s preliminary objections and the case was dismissed with prejudice. A timely appeal was filed. The Commonwealth Court held Plaintiff’s claims are not barred by sovereign immunity and reversed. The Complaint was reinstated, discovery completed, and the 1 parties cross-filed Motions for Summary Judgment. STATEMENT OF FACTS Plaintiff was incarcerated at State Correctional Institution at Camp Hill (SCI- Camp Hill) when he claims he was sent 700 family photographs in the mail from his sister on June 13, 2013. What happened to these photos following their asserted arrival 1 The caption reflects John Doe and Jane Doe as defendants. The case record indicates, however, that the only defendants remaining after Plaintiff’s reinstated Complaint are Whalen and Huber. 2014-02654 CIVIL TERM at SCI-Camp Hill is unknown based on Plaintiff’s deposition. Plaintiff never accessed, saw, or touched the photographs. Defendants’ brief alleges that Plaintiff entered SCI- Camp Hill with 26 photographs and left with 26 photographs. Plaintiff’s deposition admits that: (1) Plaintiff does not know if Defendant Whalen ever handled his personal property, (2) Defendant Whalen never personally confiscated anything from him, and (3) Plaintiff never counted or had access the 700 photographs at issue. Plaintiff also claims to have an institutional receipt detailing the confiscation of the 700 photos, and further advances that Defendants were negligent by mishandling 700 photographs, resulting in their loss. He specifically asserts that Defendant Whalen was negligent for entrusting Defendant Huber, his subordinate, with the photographs and baldly maintains that Defendant Huber acted recklessly, and was negligent, for failing to comply with his duty to “exercise extreme care” in the handling of inmate property. Defendants claim Plaintiff’s receipt is a forgery and deny that they ever confiscated or lost 700 photographs from Plaintiff. Defendants argue they acted reasonably, never confiscated the 700 photographs, owed no duty of “extreme care” to Plaintiff, and furthermore, because Defendant Whalen had no personal involvement in the loss of any photographs, there was no breach of any duty. This opinion is written in support of the decision on the Motion for Summary Judgment. DISCUSSION Statement of Law: Summary judgment is appropriate “if, after the completion of discovery relevant to the motion, including the production of expert reports, an adverse party who will bear the burden of proof at trial has failed to produce evidence of facts essential to the cause of action or defense which in a jury trial would require issues to 2 2014-02654 CIVIL TERM be submitted to a jury.” Pa.R.C.P. No. 1035.2. In order to survive summary judgment, a non-moving party must adduce evidence on an issue essential to his case and on which he bears the burden of proof. Ertel v. Patriot-News, Inc., 674 A.2d 1038, 1042 (Pa. 1996). A claim sounding in negligence requires a plaintiff to prove: (1) the defendant had a duty or obligation recognized by law, (2) the defendant breached that duty, (3) a causal connection between the defendant’s conduct and the resulting injury, and (4) actual damages. Page v. City of Philadelphia, 25 A.3d 471, 475 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011), appeal denied, 40 A.3d 124 (Pa. 2012). The formation of a contract requires an offer, an acceptance of that offer, and the exchange of consideration between two parties. Pennsylvania Workers' Compensation Judges Professional Ass'n v. Executive Bd. of Com., 39 A.3d 486 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012). A contract may be implied, but all contracts require a mutuality of obligation: Obligations under a contract must not merely be unilateral. Klingensmith v. Klingensmith, 100 A.2d 76 (Pa. 1953). Application of Law to Facts: Plaintiff has not established a duty owed to him by these Defendants, and, therefore, Defendants are entitled to summary judgment. Even if Plaintiff had established these Defendants owed a duty to him, Plaintiff failed to establish a breach of duty occurred. Plaintiff’s deposition admits that: (1) Plaintiff does not know if Defendant Whalen ever handled his personal property; (2) Defendant Whalen never personally confiscated anything from him, and (3) Plaintiff never saw, counted, or had access to the 700 photographs at issue. Plaintiff has offered no evidence supporting that Defendant Huber acted unreasonably or that he negligently 3 2014-02654 CIVIL TERM handled the photographs. Therefore, for the reasons stated above, Plaintiff’s negligence claim fails. Furthermore, because Plaintiff has failed to adduce any evidence establishing the existence of a valid express or implied contract with the Defendants, or with John or Jane Doe, his breach of contract claim also fails. ORDER OF COURT th AND NOW, this 29 day of March 2017, upon consideration of Plaintiff’s and Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment, a review of the record, and after having studied the parties’ briefs, the Defendants’ Motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED. By the Court, ________________________ Thomas A. Placey C.P.J. Distribution: Raymond W. Dorian, Esq. Joshua I. Payne Court Administration 4