The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About93-0913 CivilBRIAN BARKLEY, Plaintiff v. HONDA MOTOR COMPANY, LTD.; AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR COMPANY, INC.; HONDA R & D LTD; and THE COUNTRY GENTLEMAN, INC. t/d/b/a HONDA BMW MOTO SPORTS COMPANY, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 913 CIVIL 1993 IN RE: PRELIMINARY OBJECTION OF DEFENDANT AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR COMPANY, INC. BEFORE SHEELY, P.J., and OLER J ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this Z p t 4 day of July, 1993, after careful consideration of Defendant's Motion to Strike Plaintiff's claim for punitive damages, as well as the briefs and oral arguments presented on the matter, Defendant's Motion is DENIED. Defendant is granted 20 days within which to file an Answer to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. BY THE COURT, ! ' U Wesley Oler, Orr J. Terry S. Hyman, Esq. 4503 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 Attorney for Plaintiff Francis E. Marshall, Jr., Esq. 1323 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17102 Attorney for Defendant American Honda Motor Company, Inc. George F. Douglas, Jr., Esq. 27 West High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Attorney for Defendant Country Gentleman, Inc. :rc BRIAN BARKLEY, Plaintiff V. HONDA MOTOR COMPANY, LTD.; AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR COMPANY, INC.; HONDA R & D LTD; and THE COUNTRY GENTLEMAN, INC. t/d/b/a HONDA BMW MOTO SPORTS COMPANY, Defendant Oler, J. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 913 CIVIL 1993 IN RE: PRELIMINARY OBJECTION OF DEFENDANT AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR COMPANY, INC. BEFORE SHEELY, P.J., and OLER, J. OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT At issue in the present case is a preliminary objection in the form of a motion to strike filed by American Honda Motor Company, Inc. (Defendant), to an amended complaint filed by Brian Barkley (Plaintiff). For the reasons set forth in this Opinion, Defendant's motion is denied. The facts, as averred in Plaintiff's amended complaint, may be briefly summarized. Plaintiff is an adult individual residing in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania.' Defendant is a business entity "engaged in the design, manufacture, sales and distribution of motorized vehicles which regularly does business in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania."' On August 9, 1991, Plaintiff was riding a 1982 Honda Odyssey in a field located ' Plaintiffs Amended Complaint, paragraph 1. 2 Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, paragraph 2. Plaintiff has also named several other defendants; however, only American Honda Motor Company has filed the present preliminary objection. No. 913 Civil 1993 near Bloserville, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania .3 The Honda Odyssey is a four- wheel, off-road vehicle designed, manufactured and sold by Defendant." It is a single - seat vehicle with an open cockpit and a roll bar, and, "[f]oreseeably, the vehicle will be used in off-road locations and in such a manner that rollover accidents are likely to occur. 115 As Plaintiff was driving the Odyssey across an open hayfield on the aforementioned date, the vehicle rolled onto its left side with Plaintiff in the cockpit.e When this happened, Plaintiff "felt a spray of cold liquid across his shoulders and back,"' and, "[b]elieving [that] the cold liquid could be gasoline," Plaintiff attempted to locate and release the seat belt buckle on the vehicle.' However, Plaintiff was unable to do so before his back, shoulder and arms caught fire.' Plaintiff was subsequently pulled from the vehicle by bystanders who had noticed the flames.lo As a result of the fire, Plaintiff "suffered severe burn injuries to his upper back, 3 Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, paragraph 7. " Plaintiffs Amended Complaint, paragraph 8. 5 Plaintiffs Amended Complaint, paragraph 10. 6 Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, paragraph 11. 7 Plaintiffs Amended Complaint, paragraph 13. ' Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, paragraph 14. 9 Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, paragraph 15. io Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, paragraph 16. 2 No. 913 Civil 1993 shoulders and arms requiring several weeks of hospitalization and multiple skin grafting procedures"11 and causing him to incur medical expenses in excess of $35,000.00.12 Plaintiff has also suffered a loss of wages and decreased earning capacity,13 extreme pain and suffering,14 and "considerable psychological and emotional injury, loss of self-image and depression."" Plaintiff has commenced the present products liability action, contending that the Honda Odyssey was defective with respect to its fuel system in light of the effects thereon of foreseeable rollover accidents.18 More specifically, Plaintiff avers that "the gasoline tank and cap with a spring loading mechanism ... would spray gasoline out into the environment in an extremely flammable form under the forces present in foreseeable rollover accidents."17 Moreover, Plaintiff contends that Defendant was "aware of multiple serious burn injuries to persons and property caused by the use of caps of the design found on Plaintiffs vehicle ... [and despite said knowledge, 11 Plaintiffs Amended Complaint, paragraph 19. 12 Plaintiffs Amended Complaint, paragraph 20. 13 Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, paragraph 20. 14 Plaintiffs Amended Complaint, paragraph 22. 1s Plaintifi"s Amended Complaint, paragraph 23. 1s Plaintiffs Amended Complaint, paragraph 25. 17 Plaintiffs Amended Complaint, paragraph 25(c). 3 No. 913 Civil 1993 Defendant neither retrofit, recalled or warned the public of this extreme hazard."18 Consequently, Plaintiff contends, Defendant's conduct was "outrageous" and "evidenc[ed] a gross disregard for the risk of harm to others."19 Based upon these contentions, Plaintiff is seeking an award of exemplary damages against Defendant.` In turn, Defendant has filed the present preliminary objection in the form of a motion to strike Plaintiff s claim for punitive damages, contending that a "[r]eview of [P]laintiff"s [c]omplaint fails to reveal the existence of facts which tend to support a claim for punitive damages.i21 It is argued that since Plaintiffs complaint fails to aver "any facts whatsoever to establish wanton behavior or evil motive, [P]laintifl"s claim for punitive damage is improper."22 It is well settled in Pennsylvania that "[t]he test on preliminary objections [designed to preclude relief on the basis of the sufficiency of the averments] is whether it is clear and free from doubt from all of the facts pleaded that the pleader will be unable to prove facts legally sufficient to establish his right to relief." Bower v. Bower, 531 Pa. 54, 57, 611 A.2d 181, 182 (1992). In determining whether to grant such a is Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, paragraph 30. 19 Plaintiffs Amended Complaint, paragraph 31. 20 Plaintiffs Amended Complaint, Count III, ad damnum clause. 21 Defendant's Preliminary Objections, paragraph 3. 22 Defendant's Preliminary Objections, paragraph 4. 4 No. 913 Civil 1993 preliminary objection, the "Court must consider as true all of the well -pleaded material facts set forth in [the] complaint and all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from those facts." Id. Moreover, "preliminary objections will only be sustained if clear and free from doubt." Triage, Inc. v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Dept. of Transportation, 113 Pa. Commw. 348, 354 n.7, 537 A.2d 903, 907 n.7 (1988). The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has addressed the issue of the propriety of assessing punitive damages against a party and has held that [p]unitive damages may be awarded for conduct that is outrageous, because of the defendant's evil motive or his reckless indifference to the rights of others. In assessing punitive damages, the trier of fact can properly consider the character of the defendant's act, the nature and extent of the harm to the plaintiff that the defendant caused or intended to cause and the wealth of the defendant. Martin v. Johns -Manville Corp., 508 Pa. 154, 169-70, 494 A.2d 1088, 1096 (1985), quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts, §908(2) (1965). In a determination of whether punitive damages are appropriate, "[t]he state of mind of the actor is vital." Feld v. Merriam, 506 Pa. 383, 396, 485 A.2d 742, 748 (1984). Assessing such damages is "proper when a person's actions are of such an outrageous nature as to demonstrate intentional, willful, wanton or reckless conduct." SHV Coal, Inc. v. Continental Grain Co., 526 Pa. 489, 493, 587 A.2d 702, 704 (1991) (emphasis added). On the issue of whether a complaint sufficiently alleges that a defendant's conduct rises to the level of displaying a reckless indifference to the rights of others, 12 No. 913 Civil 1993 it is necessary to "analyze whether the complaint's allegations establish that the actor actually knew or had reason to know of facts which created a high risk of physical harm to [the] plaintiff." Field v. Philadelphia Electric Co., 388 Pa. Super. 400, 425, 565 A.2d 1170, 1182 (1989). "Furthermore, the defendant must have proceeded to act in conscious disregard of or indifference to that risk." Id. If the complaint alleges that the defendant realized the high degree of risk involved and consciously disregarded or exhibited indifference to this risk, "a jury question on the issue of punitive damages exists." Id. at 425-26, 565 A.2d at 1182. In the present case, we are of the opinion that the allegations of Plaintiffs amended complaint are sufficient to support a claim for punitive damages. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant was aware of multiple burn injuries to persons and property caused by the allegedly defective caps on the gas tanks, and that, despite this knowledge, Defendant did not retrofit, recall or warn the public of this hazard.23 Moreover, Plaintiff avers that Defendant failed to design new caps,24 failed to recall or provide notice of the risks imposed by the caps,25 and marketed the vehicle in a way which suggested that the "purchaser could drive it in a manner which would result m Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, paragraph 30. 24 Plaintiffs Amended Complaint, paragraph 25(g). 25 Plaintiffs Amended Complaint, paragraph 25(f). 0 No. 913 Civil 1993 in rollover accidents without any real fear of harm."" We believe that, if proven, Plaintiffs allegations could establish that Defendant knew or had reason to know of the allegedly defective caps on the gas tank. Furthermore, proof of such allegations could also establish that Defendant acted in conscious disregard of, or with indifference to, this risk. If established, Plaintiffs allegations could be found by a trier of fact to warrant an award of punitive damages. For this reason, the following Order will be entered: ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this day of July, 1993, after careful consideration of Defendant's Motion to Strike Plaintiffs claim for punitive damages, as well as the briefs and oral arguments presented on the matter, Defendant's Motion is DENIED. Defendant is granted 20 days within which to file an Answer to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. BY THE COURT, J.'Viresley Oler, J . J. 21 Plaintiff a Amended Complaint, paragraph 25(i). h No. 913 Civil 1993 Terry S. Hyman, Esq. 4503 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 Attorney for Plaintiff Francis E. Marshall, Jr., Esq. 1323 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17102 Attorney for Defendant American Honda Motor Company, Inc. George F. Douglas, Jr., Esq. 27 West High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Attorney for Defendant Country Gentleman, Inc. :rc