Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-5040 Civil `HARRY LAUGHLIN, II, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : : CIVIL ACTION MAURICE BAKER and : RITE AID : CORPORATION, : Defendants : NO. 08-5040 CIVIL TERM IN RE: PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO LIABILITY AND CAUSATION BEFORE HESS, P.J., OLER and MASLAND, JJ. OPINION and ORDER OF COURT OLER, J., August 26, 2010. In this civil action for personal injuries arising out of a motor vehicle accident, Plaintiff has filed a motion for partial summary judgment against the 1 driver of a vehicle which rear-ended him and against the driver’s employer. The motion requests that the court enter summary judgment in Plaintiff’s favor against 2 Defendants on the issues of liability for negligence and causation of damages. 3 Defendants have filed an answer opposing the motion. Argument was held on Plaintiff’s motion on August 18, 2010. For the reasons stated in this opinion, the motion will be denied. STATEMENT OF FACTS The allegations of Plaintiff’s complaint may be summarized as follows: On October 31, 2006, in Hampden Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, Plaintiff had stopped his BMW sedan in a westbound lane of Trindle Road when the individual defendant, while traveling at a high rate of speed and in the course 1 Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Liability and Causation, filed July 13, 2010. 2 Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Liability and Causation, at 15, filed July 13, 2010. 3 Defendant(s) Response to Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment As to Liability and Causation, filed July 29, 2010. of his employment with the corporate defendant, failed to notice that Plaintiff had stopped his vehicle and drove his Ford van into the rear of Plaintiff’s vehicle, 4 causing serious and permanent injuries to Plaintiff. Defendants’ answer with new matter to the complaint asserted, inter alia, that “Plaintiff’s claims [were] barred in 5 whole or in part by the doctrine of comparative negligence.” At a deposition, the individual defendant described the accident as having 67 occurred at a slow speed, in night visual conditions, in a lane of traffic from 8 which he could not take evasive action due to construction work. According to him, the accident occurred when he was led to believe that Plaintiff’s vehicle was still moving forward due to the absence of brake lights and discovered that it had 9 in fact come to a stop a few feet before the collision. Specifically, he testified as follows: Q Before you actually impacted Mr. Laughlin’s vehicle along 641, if you recall, when did you first observe that he had been at a complete stop, as you indicated earlier that he was at a complete stop? A I realized that he wasn’t moving. The taillights were on. There were no stop lights. So I thought that he was moving because of the 10 lack of stop lights tells me that he is moving and I realized he wasn’t. * * * * Q Now, if you can quantify this, and I know it might be an estimate, and tell me if it is an estimate. How many van lengths away were from the back of Mr. Laughlin’s BMW when you first noticed that the vehicle was not moving, if you know? A I was close, but I can’t give you a distance. I don’t know. Q It was more than one van length? A No. It wasn’t that great a distance. 4 Plaintiff’s Complaint, filed August 21, 2008. 5 Defendants’ Answer and New Matter to Plaintiff’s Complaint, ¶23, filed March 16, 2009. 6 N.T. 33, Deposition of Maurice E. Baker, September 30, 2009 (hereinafter N.T. __, Baker Deposition). 7 N.T. 9, Baker Deposition. 8 N.T. 10-12, 31-32, Baker Deposition. 9 N.T. 31, Baker Deposition. 10 N.T. 31, Baker Deposition. 2 Q So it was closer than one full length of your van. 11 A That’s correct. DISCUSSION On a motion for summary judgment, the record must be viewed “in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, resolving all doubts as to the existence of a genuine issue of material fact against the moving party.” Atcovitz v. Gulph Mills Tennis Club, Inc., 571 Pa. 580, 585-86, 812 A.2d 1218, 1221 (2002). Summary judgment is not appropriate unless “the facts are so clear that reasonable minds cannot differ.” Id. at 586, 812 A.2d at 1222. In the present case, if the testimony of the individual defendant is read in the light most favorable to Defendants with respect to the issue of negligence, a trier-of-fact might conclude that Plaintiff was operating a vehicle with defective brake lights and/or that the individual defendant was confronted with a sudden 12 emergency not of his making. Accordingly, in the court’s view, it is premature to hold, as a matter of law, that Plaintiff will fully prevail on its negligence claim. 13 For this reason, the following order will be entered: ORDER OF COURT th AND NOW, this 26 day of August, 2010, upon consideration of Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment As to Liability and Causation, and following oral argument held on August 18, 2010, the motion is denied. BY THE COURT, s/ J. Wesley Oler, Jr. J. Wesley Oler, Jr., J. 11 N.T. 32, Baker Deposition. 12 Cf. Leahy v. McClain, 1999 PA Super 145, 732 A.2d 619. 13 In view of the court’s disposition of Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the issue of negligence, it is unnecessary to rule upon the aspect of the motion dealing with causation. 3 Ronald T. Tomasko, Esq. Sean M. Concannon, Esq. P.O. Box 650 Hershey, PA 17033 Attorneys for Plaintiff Francis R. Gartner, Esq. William J. Ferren & Associates 10 Sentry Parkway Suite 301 Blue Bell, PA 19422 Attorney for Defendants 4 5 HARRY LAUGHLIN, II, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : : CIVIL ACTION MAURICE BAKER and : RITE AID : CORPORATION, : Defendants : NO. 08-5040 CIVIL TERM IN RE: PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO LIABILITY AND CAUSATION BEFORE HESS, P.J., OLER and MASLAND, JJ. ORDER OF COURT th AND NOW, this 26 day of August, 2010, upon consideration of Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment As to Liability and Causation, and following oral argument held on August 18, 2010, the motion is denied. BY THE COURT, _________________ J. Wesley Oler, Jr., J. Ronald T. Tomasko, Esq. Sean M. Concannon, Esq. P.O. Box 650 Hershey, PA 17033 Attorneys for Plaintiff Francis R. Gartner, Esq. William J. Ferren & Associates 10 Sentry Parkway Suite 301 Blue Bell, PA 19422 Attorney for Defendants