Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout97-2003 civilCLAIRE F. BECKWITH, Plaintiff Ve ALL AMERICAN AUTO/TRUCK PLAZA, INC., t/d/b/a ALL AMERICAN TRUCK STOP GROUP, a/k/a ALL AMERICAN PLAZAS, INC., Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 97-2003 CIVIL TERM IN RE: DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BEFORE HOFFER, P.J., OLER, J., GUIDO, J. AND NOW, this ORDER day of JUNE, 1998, Defendant's Motion For Summary Judgment is GRANTED. Edward E. Guido, J. Robert MacIntyre, Esquire For the Plaintiff Kevin C. McNamara, Esquire For the Defendants :sld CLAIRE F. BECKWITH, Plaintiff Vo ALL AMERICAN AUTO/TRUCK PLAZA, INC., t/d/b/a ALL AMERICAN TRUCK STOP GROUP, a/k/a ALL AMERICAN PLAZAS, INC., Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 97-2003 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN RE: DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BEFORE HOFFER, P.J., OLER, J., GUIDO, J. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT On April 17, 1997, Plaintiff filed this action against the Defendant alleging that she sustained damages resulting from tainted food served to her at Defendant's restaurant. On March 18, 1998, Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. Argument on Defendant's Motion was held before this Court on April 15, 1997. After argument, and by agreement of the parties, Plaintiff's counsel was given thirty (30) days to supplement the record.~ This matter is now ready for disposition. DISCUSSION The Defendant's Motion For Summary Judgment was filed in accordance with Pa. Rule of Civil Procedure 1035.2(2) which provides as follows: Rule 1035.2 Motion After the relevant pleadings are closed, but within such time as not to unreasonably delay trial, any party may move for summary judgment in whole or in part as a mater of law · · · ~Counsel did not supplement the record. NO. 97-2003 CIVIL TERM (2) 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 the issues to be submitted to a jury. It is the Defendant's position that the Plaintiff has failed to come forward with any evidence to prove that the food she ate was tainted or that her subsequent illness was caused by the food she consumed at Defendant's restaurant. For the reasons hereinafter set forth, we agree with the Defendant. In determining whether to grant a Motion for Summary Judgment, the trial Court must examine the record in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. City of York v. Schaefer Temporary Serv., Inc., 667 A.2d 495 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1995). Ertel v. Patriot News Co., 544 Pa. 93, 674 A.2d 1038 (1996). Summary judgment may only be granted in cases that are clear and free from doubt. Hoffman v. Brandywine Hosp., 443 Pa. Super. 245, 661 A.2d 397 (1995). Viewing the instant record in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, she is able to prove the following: 1) As part of her lunch at Defendant's restaurant on August 13, 1995, Plaintiff ate three (3) spoonfuls of pea soup. 2) She complained to the waitress that the soup was spoiled. 3) The waitress removed the remainder of the soup from the buffet line. 4) Plaintiff consumed no more food that day. 5) That evening at midnight, Plaintiff awoke with stomach cramps and later developed diarrhea. NO. 97-2003 CIVIL TERM 6)' She was hospitalized for several days. What is conspicuously absent from the record is any competent medical evidence which links her midnight maladies to her lunch at Defendant's establishment. The law in this Commonwealth is clear. When there is no obvious causal relationship between an injury and the incident giving rise to the cause of action, medical evidence is necessary to establish that causal connection. Smith v. German, 434 Pa. 47, 253 A.2d 107 (1969). In the instant case, Plaintiff has produced no medical testimony, records, or other evidence whatsoever which diagnoses her condition as being food related, let alone linking it to the food served by Defendant. For all we know, her symptoms could have been caused by any number of things, including the flu, or other natural ailments. While one possible cause may have been the pea soup, we cannot allow the jury to speculate on the issue of causation. Albert v. Alter, 252 Pa. Super. 203, 381A.2d 459 (1977). Since the Plaintiff has failed to produce any competent medical evidence to show that she was made sick at Defendant's restaurant, we have no alternative but to grant Defendant's Motion For Summary Judgment. NO. 97-2003 CIVIL TERM AND NOW, this /~~ ORDER day of JUNE, 1998, Defendant's Motion For Summary Judgment is GRANTED. By the Court, Robert MacIntyre, Esquire For the Plaintiff Kevin C. McNamara, Esquire For the Defendants :sld /s/ Edward E. Guido Edward E. Guido, J.