Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-1398 CIVILMICHAEL L. WALLS, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PLAINTIFF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. CARLISLE AREA HEALTH AND WELLNESS FOUNDATION, previously : known as CARLISLE HOSPITAL AND HEALTH SERVICES, DEFENDANT 02-1398 CIVIL TERM IN RE: DEMURRER OF DEFENDANT TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT BEFORE BAYLEY, J. AND HESS, J. OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT Bayley, J., November 18, 2002:-- Plaintiff, Michael L. Walls, seeks damages against defendant, Carlisle Area Health and Wellness Foundation, previously known as Carlisle Hospital and Health Services, as a result of an incident that occurred on September 14, 2000. Plaintiff avers in his complaint that he was operating a riding lawn mower on defendant's property. There was a hole on the property and the ground around the hole was unstable. The hole collapsed under the mower. Plaintiff was pulled into the hole and pinned by the lawn mower. Plaintiff avers that he "sustained painful and severe injuries to his nerves, bones and soft tissues that include, but are not limited to contusions to his knees, head and back," and that the injuries "may have aggravated or been aggravated by an existing infirmity, condition or disease, resulting in prolongation or worsening of the injuries and enhanced risk of future harm .... "Claiming that the 02-1398 CIVIL TERM injury was a result of the negligence of defendant, plaintiff seeks damages for lost earning and benefits, lost earning capacity, incidental costs of expenses, humiliation and embarrassment, loss of enjoyment of the pleasures of life, past and future physical pain and suffering, permanent disfigurement, and: 27. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligence the Plaintiff suffered the above-described bodily injuries, which were accompanied by severe mental anguish, mental suffering, emotional distress, nervous shock, fright and horror and which mental suffering is directly traceable to the peril in which the Defendant's negligence placed the Plaintiff. 28. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligence, carelessness, and recklessness and by reason of the aforesaid injuries he sustained, Plaintiff will continue to endure great mental anguish, mental suffering, emotional distress, shame, worry, and anger in the future and which mental suffering is directly traceable to the peril in which the Defendant's negligence placed the Plaintiff. 29. As a result of the aforesaid incident and the injuries he sustained as a result, Plaintiff suffers from emotional distress, post- traumatic stress disorder and depression directly traceable to the peril in which the Defendant's negligence placed the Plaintiff. Count I of the complaint seeks recovery for negligence based upon premises liability. Count II sets forth a separate claim titled "Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress." Plaintiff avers: 33. As a direct result of Defendant's negligent actions and/or failure to act as described above, the Plaintiff suffered physical and psychological injuries entitling him to recover damages from the Defendant, and claim is made therefore. Defendant filed a preliminary objection in the form of a demurrer to count II alleging negligent infliction of emotional distress. The issue was briefed and argued on October 23, 2002. -2- 02-1398 CIVIL TERM This is not one of the very limited cases where an independent tort of negligent infliction of emotional distress is applicable. See Armstrong v. Paoli Memorial Hospital, 430 Pa. Super. 36 (1993); Brown v. Philadelphia College of Osteopathic Medical, 674 A.2d 1130 (Pa. Super. 1996). Plaintiff, however, is not precluded from recovering for any emotional distress that is a component of any physical injury he incurred as a result of any causal negligence of defendant. In Potere v. Philadelphia, 380 Pa. 581 (1955), the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania stated: [w]here... a plaintiff sustains bodily injuries, even though trivial or minor in character, which are accompanied by fright or mental suffering directly traceable to the peril in which the defendant's negligence placed the plaintiff, then mental suffering is a legitimate element of damages: Applebaum v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Co., 244 Pa. 82, 90 A. 462; Hess v. Philadelphia Transportation Company, 358 Pa. 144, 56 A. 2d 89. In the case sub judice, plaintiff claims he was physically impacted and injured as a result of the negligence of defendant. Thus, he has an emotional distress claim as a component of his claim for injury under count I of his complaint. He does not have a separate claim that would entitled him to additional damages for negligence infliction of emotional distress as averred in count II of his complaint. Accordingly, the following order is entered. ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this day of November, 2002, the demurrer of defendant to count II in plaintiff's complaint alleging a separate tort negligent infliction of emotional distress, IS SUSTAINED. Count II of plaintiff's complaint, IS DISMISSED. -3- 02-1398 CIVIL TERM By the Court, Edgar B. Bayley, J. Stephen A. Schneider, Esquire For Plaintiff Marc T. Levin, Esquire For Defendant :sal -4-