Wade Clark Mulcahy LLP

Let’s say you have a delivery business and that that business employs truckers. One day, one of the truck drivers employed by the business gets into an accident. Now not only is the driver and your business being sued for negligence, but the plaintiff says they want punitive damages too!

In a society that is, at this point, built around the use of automobiles for transportation, are punitive damages always available? Applying Pennsylvania law, the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania recently decided a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim in Jones v. Silver Creek Transport, LLC, which dealt with the availability of punitive damages.

Roy Jones (“Jones”) brought an action in negligence against Silver Creek Transport, LLC (“Silver Creek”) and Aaron Baxter (“Baxter”). Jones v. Silver Creek Transp., LLC, No. 2:23-CV-01461-MJH, 2023 WL 7301076, at *1 (W.D. Pa. Nov. 6, 2023). As part of Jones’ complaint he alleged “recklessness,” “outrageous conduct,” and “gross negligence.” Id.

In response to the complaint, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss allegations of recklessness, outrageous conduct, and gross negligence, and the claim for punitive damages. Id. The defendants argued that “Jones's punitive damages claim should be dismissed because the Complaint fails to establish the ‘something more’ component beyond the ordinary negligence averments required for punitive damages.” Id. at 4. Further, the defendants argued that Jones’ complaint “alleges no conduct that elevates Mr. Baxter's actions to outrageous or egregious actions” and that the allegations against Silver Creek were “boilerplate, conclusory allegations regarding whether it trained Mr. Baxter inadequately, failed to monitor or supervise him adequately, failed maintain its vehicles adequately, or otherwise failed to properly comply with certain, undefined statutes or regulations.” Id. Whereas Jones argued that his complaint did in fact meet the requirements for punitive damages, id., the court granted the motion to dismiss the allegations and claim for punitive damages. Id. at 5. What was the court’s reasoning?

The court stated that in “Pennsylvania, the assessment of punitive damages is proper when a person's actions are of such an outrageous nature as to demonstrate intentional, willful, wanton or reckless conduct.” Id. at *4 (internal quotations omitted) (citing SHV Coal, Inc. v. Cont'l Grain Co., 587 A.2d 702, 704 (Pa. 1991)). Likewise, the court articulated that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has previously adopted Section 908(2) of the Restatement (Second) of Torts, which states that:

Punitive 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.

Id.; see also Restatement (Second) of Torts § 908(2). Specifically, in “the motor vehicle context, ‘simple allegations limited only to a defendant failing to comply with traffic laws are not sufficient for punitive damages.’” Id. (citing Carson v. Tucker, 2020 WL 4015244 at 4 (E.D. Pa. July 16, 2020)). Moreover the court observed that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court had also held “that defendant's negligent speeding, failure to properly signal, and failure to properly observe roadways did not warrant punitive damages” Id. (summarizing Babenko v. Dillon, No. 5:19-cv-00199, 2019 WL 3548833 at 3 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 2, 2019)).

The upshot of the court’s application of the legal standards for punitive damages and ruling on a motion to dismiss the punitive damages claim was that the court recognized that Jones’ complaint “contains conclusory allegations that label Defendants’ conduct as reckless, wanton, or outrageous. Moreover, said allegations are devoid of facts that would support any specified conduct or violations of specific regulations or statutes.” Id. Specifically, the court noted that “[t]he inclusion of simple allegations that a truck driver did not comply with the law or violated regulations does not, by itself, satisfy the requirements of Pennsylvania law for awarding punitive damages.” Id. (citing Elmi v. Kornilenko, 2018 WL 1157996, at *5 (W.D. Pa. Mar. 2, 2018)). Simply stated, the court held that Jones’ complaint “contains a litany of allegations against Defendants that are unsupported by the requisite specificity to reach a plausible conclusion regarding Defendants’ conduct which would buttress a punitive damage claim. Therefore, Mr. Jones's claim against Defendants for punitive damages and the averments purporting to support the same will be dismissed.” Id.

What does this mean for you and your delivery business or for your truck driver employee? An accident on the road which leads to a negligence suit against the business, or the driver, might or might not have facts and circumstances that would make a punitive damages claim viable. Be wary of punitive damages claims, because unless the plaintiff can aver the facts that make our business and employee’s conduct into conduct that is outrageous because of an evil motive, or recklessly indifference to the rights of others, there is a very good chance that the punitive damages claim can be dismissed.