Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout99-1917 civilFRANK FRUCIANO, JR., PLAINTIFF Vo JEFFREY ALAN BLYSTONE, FOX AND JAMES WHITE TRUCK COMPANY, t/d/b/a F/J LEASING COMPANY and W.C. MCQUAIDE, INC., DEFENDANTS IN RE: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 99-1917 CIVIL TERM PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS OF DEFENDANTS TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT BEFORE BAYLEY, J. AND GUIDO, J. OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT Bayley, J., December 10, 1999:- Plaintiff, Frank Fruciano, Jr., filed a complaint against defendants Jeffrey Alan Blystone, Fox and James White Truck Company, t/d/b/a F/J Leasing Company and W.C. McQuaide, Inc., for damages arising out of an accident on August 8, 1997, on the Pennsylvania Turnpike in Lower Allen Township, Cumberland County. In his complaint, plaintiff avers that while he was traveling eastbound in a car on the Pennsylvania Turnpike, defendant, Jeffrey Alan Blystone, was traveling westbound in a tractor-trailer. Plaintiff avers that defendant was operating the tractor-trailer at a dangerously high speed which resulted in his crashing through the guardrail dividing the westbound and eastbound lanes and colliding with plaintiff's vehicle. Plaintiff alleges that defendant drove with reckless indifference to the rights of others, that he knew that his conduct 99-1917 CIVIL TERM created a high degree of risk of physical harm to others, that he deliberately proceeded to act in conscious disregard or indifference to that risk in crashing the tractor-trailer through the guardrail and into oncoming traffic. Defendants filed preliminary objections to plaintiff's complaint seeking to strike paragraph 17 which sets forth that defendant, Jeffrey Alan Blystone, was cited for two violations by the Pennsylvania State Police, and plaintiff's claim for punitive damages. Defendant concedes that paragraph 17 must be stricken but maintains it has pleaded sufficient facts in support of his claim for punitive damages. We have filed two opinions on motions for summary judgment regarding claims for punitive damages in cases in which tractor-trailers were involved in accidents. In Regi v. PGT Trucking, Inc., 46 Cumberland L.J. 217 (1997), the facts were: [G]erald D. Regi, was injured in an accident at approximately 8:00 a.m. on a clear day on Interstate 81 in Middlesex Township, Cumberland County. A tractor-trailer operated by defendant, Kenneth M. Greathouse, struck the rear of a 28 foot trailer loaded with construction materials attached to a pickup truck operated by plaintiff. The force of the collision pushed the trailer and pickup truck approximately 100 feet from the position where the tractor trailer came to rest. Greathouse and the trucking companies for whom he was driving admit negligence. Defendants filed a motion for partial summary judgment on plaintiff's claim for punitive damages. (Footnote omitted.) [p]laintiff in his deposition stated that he had slowed almost to a stop as the van in front of him did the same, he saw defendant coming from behind, and it did not appear as if he was going to stop. Defendant then struck his vehicle and pushed it into the van in front of plaintiff's vehicle. In his deposition, defendant stated that he was aware that he was in a construction zone, that nothing obscured his vision ahead, and that he did -2- 99-1917 CIVIL TERM not recall anything specifically distracting his attention from the vehicles that were ahead of him. The state police officer who investigated the accident has set forth that defendant failed to react to the slowing vehicles in front of him and although he applied his brakes, his actions came to late too avoid colliding with plaintiff. Plaintiff has no direct evidence as to defendant's speed at the time of the collision although he notes that the damage caused by the accident as shown in a picture taken at the scene before any vehicles were moved reflects a violent collision. (Footnote omitted) (Emphasis added). In granting summary judgment on plaintiff's claim for punitive damages, we stated: These facts.., show that defendant was inattentive to the traffic that slowed to a near stop in the construction zone. Obviously defendant was negligent, but the facts are not, in our opinion, sufficient to establish that he exhibited a conscious disregard or indifference to the risk associated with a rear-end accident. To hold otherwise would turn every collision case in which a truck rear-ends a vehicle into a punitive damage case. In Williams v. Tranum, 48 Cumberland L.J. 62 (1998), plaintiff was operating a snowplow and defendant was operating a tractor-trailer on Interstate 81. A witness testified at a deposition that he was operating a van with a box trailer southbound on Interstate 81. He was in the center lane of three southbound lanes and an ABF tractor- trailer, defendant, was in the right lane. The witness saw flashing lights when he was a mile and a half away from the Wertzville Road exit. He testified that he "[c]ould see the lights due to all the amount of snow that was on the ground and the lights reflecting off of the snow." While there was snow on the ground, it was not snowing or raining at the time and the roadway was clear. When the witness was approximately two-thirds of a mile away from the exit, he realized that the lights were on a state truck that was in the right southbound lane. There were bright yellow flashing lights on a bar on back of the -3- 99-1917 CIVIL TERM truck and there was an overhead beacon. There was a lighted road sign directly above the state truck that extended over all three southbound lanes of the interstate. The witness testified that he was behind the first trailer of defendant's vehicle but coming up upon the front of the back trailer. He realized that he "[h]ad to get over into the left lane so that the ABF driver could get over and get out of the way of the snowplow." While about two-thirds of a mile from the snowplow, the witness moved his vehicle into the left lane and flashed his lights so that the ABF driver would know that he "[h]ad cleared the center lane and went into the left lane and that would give him an opportunity to be able to get into the center lane." The snowplow was stopped facing southbound in the right lane of the highway. The ABF driver continued in the right lane and hit the snowplow at approximately fifty miles an hour. At that point the witness was approximately two truck lengths ahead in the left lane and going about fifty-five miles per hour. He saw the impact through his rearview mirror. His vehicle, the snowplow and the ABF tractor- trailer were the only vehicles in the area when the accident occurred. Defendant, Charles Tranum, testified at his deposition that on the day before the accident he was on a two hour call-up from ABF. He stayed at his house and took some naps until the call to work came at 5:00 p.m. He went in at 7:00 p.m. He left an ABF terminal in Cumberland County at approximately 8:00 p.m. and drove to Scranton, Pennsylvania, arriving at approximately 11:00 p.m. On his way back from Scranton he stopped for about fifteen minutes for a cup of coffee. At approximately 3:00 a.m. he drove across the Interstate 81 bridge over the Susquehanna River between Dauphin -4- 99-1917 CIVIL TERM and Cumberland County. Tranum testified that he does not remember if it was raining or snowing or what the road conditions were. He does not remember anything after the Enola exit that is just beyond the bridge until the accident occurred at the Wertzville Road exit. He testified that he does not remember how the accident happened. When asked whether he was awake at the time of the accident he testified "1 can't honestly say that. I don't know. I don't remember the accident. It's that simple:" The last thing I remember prior to the accident is Carolina passing me coming up the hill there. There's a little hill when you come off the end of the bridge. I remember his passing me there. Tranum was referring to a Carolina Freight truck that passed him near the Enola exit. He has no memory of the witness's vehicle or of the witness blinking his lights to let him know the center lane was clear before the point of impact. Tranum testified that he had his seat belt on and was knocked out for a couple of seconds when the accident occurred. His leg was injured and he was taken to a hospital in an ambulance where he was treated for serious injury to his knee. Plaintiff, Michael Williams, testified at his deposition that he was working a midnight to 8:00 a.m. shift on February 16, 1994. He was operating a dump truck and had been plowing shoulders on Interstate 81 between the Enola exit that is just south of the bridge over the Susquehanna River to the Wertzville Road exit about three miles away. It was a clear, cold night and there was no snow on the travel lanes of the highway. Williams testified that his truck had on six blinking rear, bottom, top and side flashers plus two high frequency blinking lights and a beacon. Williams had been -5- 99-1917 CIVIL TERM clearing snow and ice off a triangular piece of land between the highway and the exit ramp. He testified that when the accident happened his truck was underneath an overhead sign and was part on the exit ramp and part in the southbound lane. He had been stopped for about ten minutes waiting for a loader operated by another worker to get into position. The traffic was light and vehicles had gone past him in the far lane. Williams saw defendant's tractor-trailer coming toward him and another truck that was coming with flashing lights. That tractor-trailer kept coming in the right lane and hit his snowplow. On these facts we concluded that there was sufficient evidence whereby a jury could draw a reasonable inference that defendant was asleep prior to his tractor-trailer hitting plaintiff's snowplow. We concluded: In SHV Coal Co. v. Continental Grain Co., 526 Pa. 489 (1991), the Supreme Court stated that: '[T]he determination of whether a person's actions arise to outrageous conduct lies with the sound discretion of the fact-finder .... ' If a jury were to conclude that defendant Tranum fell asleep, that such conduct caused his tractor trailer to collide with plaintiff, and that he knew, or had reason to know of facts which created a high degree of risk of physical harm to another, and deliberately proceeded to act, or to failed to act, in conscious disregard of, or indifference to that risk, that would constitute sufficient evidence to create a jury question on the issue of punitive damages. In the case sub judice, in contrast to Williams and Regi where there was a record on the issue of punitive damages on motions for summary judgment, we are only at the pleading stage. All well-pleaded material facts and all reasonable inferences deducible from these facts are deemed admitted on a demurrer. Green v. Mizner, 692 -6- 99-1917 CIVIL TERM A.2d 169 (1997). Plaintiff has pleaded facts sufficient to warrant the dismissal of defendants' preliminary objection. ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this ,/~)'~' day of December, 1999, IT IS ORDERED: (1) Paragraph 17 of plaintiff's complaint, IS STRICKEN. (2) Defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiff's claim for punitive damages, IS DENIED. g . yley, Andrew H. Dowling, Esquire For Plaintiff Brian G. Price, Esquire For Defendants :saa -7-