Punitive damages denied in cell phone accident
Share with others:
A Northampton County trial judge has found that talking on a cell phone while driving is not egregious enough to warrant punitive damages in a motor vehicle accident case.
In the case known as Xander v. Kiss, Northampton County Common Pleas Judge Leonard N. Zito granted the defendant driver's motion to strike the punitive damages charge against him.
"The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has held that punitive damages are an 'extreme remedy,' available in only the most exceptional matters," Judge Zito said, citing the high court's 2005 ruling in Phillips v. Cricket Lighters. "In our view, the allegations in the amended complaint do not rise to the level of egregiousness required for a punitive damages claim."
Daniel E. Cummins, a defense attorney with the Scranton law firm Foley Cognetti Comerford Cimini & Cummins who is not involved in the Xander case, said Judge Zito might have ruled differently had there been a state law on the books banning talking on a cell phone while driving.
The Legislature recently passed a law, SB 314, that will ban texting while driving when it takes effect later this year, but it doesn't outlaw talking on a cell phone.
In this case, plaintiff Nancy Xander alleged that defendant Dennis Kiss' vehicle had crossed into her lane and hit her vehicle.
Ms. Xander asserted a negligence claim and her husband, co-plaintiff Dan Xander, asserted a loss of consortium claim, according to Judge Zito.
The plaintiffs, according to the judge, also said punitive damages were appropriate, alleging that Mr. Kiss had crossed into Nancy Xander's lane because he was talking on his cell phone while driving.
Judge Zito disagreed, saying Pennsylvania's appellate courts have set a high bar for punitive damages.
In addition to the Supreme Court's Phillips ruling, the judge cited the state Superior Court's 1992 ruling in McClellan v. Health Maintenance Organization of Pennsylvania, which held that "exemplary damages are proper when the act which creates actual damages also supports insult or outrage, and is committed with a view to oppress or is done in contempt of plaintiffs' rights."
The McClellan court found punitive damages may be appropriate "when the act is done with reckless indifference, as well as bad motive," according to Judge Zito's opinion.
First Published February 13, 2012 12:00 am
