Muehleisen et al v. Altec Industries, Inc.

Filing 34

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting 6 MOTION to Dismiss Claim for Punitive Damages filed by Altec Industries, Inc..Signed by Magistrate Judge Malachy E. Mannion on 8/27/12. (bs, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
MICHAEL MUEHLEISEN and
TAMMI MUEHLEISEN,

:
:

Plaintiffs

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:12-0146
:

v.

(MANNION, M.J)
:

ALTEC INDUSTRIES, INC.,
:
Defendant
:
MEMORANDUM AND O R D E R1
Pending before the court is the defendant’s motion to dismiss the
plaintiffs’ claim for punitive damages, (Doc. No. 6). Finding that the alleged
facts fail to demonstrate the type of outrageous conduct that warrants
imposition of punitive damages, the motion is GRANTED.

I.

BACKGROUND
On March 17, 2011, Plaintiff Michael Muehleisen was injured while

using a lift truck manufactured by the defendant. (Doc. No. 1 at 11-12).

1

For the convenience of the reader of this document in electronic
format, hyperlinks to the court’s record and to authority cited have been
inserted. No endorsement of any provider of electronic resources is intended
by the court’s practice of using hyperlinks.

Specifically, the plaintiff, working as a lineman for Verizon, was operating the
lift bucket of the truck when the bucket “suddenly lurched and snapped in the
opposite direction” causing him to fall against the operating panel. (Id.). As a
result, he suffered injuries to his back, wrist and shoulder. (Id. at 12).
The plaintiff alleges that prior to his accident, other employees had
reported that the bucket lift was not operating properly and that it had
undergone inspection and maintenance. (Id. at 11-12). The problem, however,
was not properly fixed. (Id. at 12).
The plaintiffs initially filed their complaint before the Schuylkill County
Court of Common Pleas. (Doc. No. 8). The defendant filed a notice of removal
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1441 based on this court’s jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. §1332. The complaint comprises three counts: negligent design,
construction and inspection; breach of warranty; and, negligent failure to
repair. (Doc. No. 1 at 12-15). Punitive damages, however, are only claimed
with regard to the third count, negligent failure to repair. (Id. at 15). The
defendant filed the instant motion to dismiss the punitive damages claim,
(Doc. No. 6), and brief in support, (Doc. No. 7), on February 3, 2012. The
plaintiffs filed a brief in opposition, (Doc. No. 12), on March 1, 2012.

2

II.

STANDARD OF REVIEW
The defendant seeks dismissal pursuant to the provisions of Fed. R.

Civ. P. 12(b)(6). This rule provides for the dismissal of a complaint, in whole
or in part, if the plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
The moving party bears the burden of showing that no claim has been stated,
Hedges v. United States, 404 F.3d 744, 750 (3d Cir. 2005), and dismissal is
appropriate only if, accepting all of the facts alleged in the complaint as true,
the plaintiff has failed to plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face,” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 127 S. Ct.
1955, 1974 (2007) (abrogating “no set of facts” language found in Conley v.
Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957)). The facts alleged must be sufficient to
“raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Twombly, 550 U.S. 544,
127 S. Ct. at 1965. This requirement “calls for enough fact[s] to raise a
reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence of “necessary
elements of the plaintiff’s cause of action. Id. Furthermore, in order to satisfy
federal pleading requirements, the plaintiff must “provide the grounds of his
entitlement to relief,” which “requires more than labels and conclusions, and
a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Phillips
v. County of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 231 (3d Cir. 2008) (brackets and
3

quotations marks omitted) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 127 S. Ct. at
1964-65).
In considering a motion to dismiss, the court generally relies on the
complaint, attached exhibits, and matters of public record. Sands v.
McCormick, 502 F.3d 263 (3d Cir. 2007). The court may also consider
“undisputedly authentic document[s] that a defendant attaches as an exhibit
to a motion to dismiss if the plaintiff’s claims are based on the [attached]
documents.” Pension Benefit Guar. Corp. v. White Consol. Indus., 998 F.2d
1192, 1196 (3d Cir. 1993). Moreover, “documents whose contents are alleged
in the complaint and whose authenticity no party questions, but which are not
physically attached to the pleading, may be considered.” Pryor v. Nat’l
Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 288 F.3d 548, 560 (3d Cir. 2002). However, the
court may not rely on other parts of the record in determining a motion to
dismiss. Jordan v. Fox, Rothschild, O’Brien & Frankel, 20 F.3d 1250, 1261
(3d Cir. 1994).

III.

DISCUSSION
The court agrees that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has adopted the

approach of the Second Restatement of Torts regarding punitive damages.
4

See Moore v. Vislosky, 240 Fed.Appx. 457 (3d Cir.2007)(citing Feld v.
Merriam, 506 Pa. 383 (1984)). Moreover, the court concurs that under
§908(2) of the Second Restatement of Torts, punitive damages are only
appropriate when there is “conduct that is outrageous, because of the
defendant's evil motive or his reckless indifference to the rights of others.”
RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS §908(2). Pennsylvania courts and federal
courts applying Pennsylvania law have also stated that “[p]unitive damages
may not be awarded for misconduct which constitutes ordinary negligence...”
Wayne

v.

First

Citizen’s

Nat.

Bank,

846

F.Supp

310,

320-21

(M.D.Pa.1994)(quoting McDaniel v. Merck, Sharp & Dohme, 367 Pa.Super.
600, 533 A.2d 436 (1987)); see also ConsulNet Computing, Inc. v. Moore,
2008 WL 2950783 (E.D.Pa. July 30, 2008)(citing Hall v. Jackson, 788 A.2d
390, 403 (Pa.Super.2001) and quoting McDaniel, 533 A.2d at 447).
Here, the plaintiffs stated that other employees reported bucket
malfunctions and based on these complaints, the truck was inspected and/or
repaired. (Doc. No. 1 at 11-12). Nevertheless, the problem was not apparently
fixed. (Id.). Though a failure to properly repair a known problem may be the
result of negligence, these facts do not demonstrate outrageous conduct. The
plaintiffs have asserted that reports of malfunctions were met with attempts

5

at repair, such conduct does not suggest any evil motive or reckless
indifference to others on the part of the defendant. As such, the record does
not support the plaintiffs’ claim for punitive damages under Pennsylvania law.

THEREFORE, THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS, THAT:
The defendant’s motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s claim for punitive
damages, (Doc. No. 6), is GRANTED.

s/ Malachy E. Mannion
MALACHY E. MANNION
United States Magistrate Judge

Date: August 27, 2012
O:\shared\MEMORANDA\2012 MEMORANDA\12-0146-01.wpd

6