MIECZKOWSKI v. THE SALVATION ARMY
Filing
33
MEMORANDUM (Order to follow as separate docket entry) re #29 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by The Salvation Army Signed by Honorable James M. Munley on 1/23/17. (sm)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
DAWN MIECZKOWSKI,
Plaintiff
:
No. 3:15cv2146
:
:
(Judge Munley)
v.
:
:
THE SALVATION ARMY,
:
Defendant
:
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
MEMORANDUM
Before the court for disposition is Defendant Salvation Army’s
(hereinafter “the defendant”) motion for partial summary judgment on
Plaintiff Dawn Mieczkowski’s (hereinafter “plaintiff”) punitive damages
claims. (Doc. 29). For the reasons that follow, the court will grant the
defendant’s motion.
Background
This case arises from an accidental fall on September 14, 2013, at
the Salvation Army Thrift Store located at 739 Sans Souci Parkway,
Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania. (Doc. 31, Def.’s Statement of Uncontested
Material Facts (hereinafter “SOF”) ¶ 1).1 Plaintiff avers that she entered the
store to drop off a clothing donation and, as she approached the drop-off
1
We cite to the defendant’s SOF (Doc. 31) for statements which plaintiff
generally agrees with in her response (Doc. 32) or are generally
established in the record.
location, “an uncontrolled and unkempt accumulation of donated household
goods, bags, clothing, toys, and other matter” caused her to fall to the
ground and endure serious injuries. (SOF ¶ 3).
On August 20, 2015, plaintiff filed a complaint alleging counts of
negligence and negligent supervision, both of which seek compensatory
and punitive damages against the defendant. (Doc. 1, Ex. A., Compl.).2
On December 16, 2016, the defendant filed the instant motion for partial
summary judgment on plaintiff’s punitive damages claims. The parties
have briefed their respective positions and the matter is ripe for disposition.
Jurisdiction
The court has jurisdiction pursuant to the diversity statute, 28 U.S.C.
§ 1332. Plaintiff is a citizen of Pennsylvania, the defendant is a citizen of
New York, and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.3 (Doc. 1,
2
Plaintiff originally filed her complaint in the Philadelphia County Court
Common Pleas. (Doc. 1, Ex. A., Compl.). On October 19, 2015, the
defendant removed the case to the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania. (Doc. 1, Notice of Removal). Subsequent
to removal, the case was transferred to the United States District Court for
the Middle District of Pennsylvania on November 6, 2015. (Doc. 10).
3
Where an appropriate claim for punitive damages is made, the amount in
controversy requirement is generally met “because it cannot be stated to a
legal certainty that the value of the plaintiff’s claim is below the statutory
minimum.” Huber v. Taylor, 532 F.3d 237, 244 (3d Cir. 2008) (internal
citation, emphasis, and quotation marks omitted). Here, plaintiff has made
a claim for punitive damages under both counts of her complaint. Thus, the
2
Compl. ¶ 1, Notice of Removal ¶¶ 6-9, 11). Because complete diversity of
citizenship exists between the parties and the amount in controversy
exceeds $75,000, the court has jurisdiction over the case. See 28 U.S.C. §
1332 (“[D]istrict courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions
where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000,
exclusive of interest and costs, and is between . . . citizens of different
States[.]”). As a federal court sitting in diversity, the substantive law of
Pennsylvania shall apply to the instant case. Chamberlain v. Giampapa,
210 F.3d 154, 158 (3d Cir. 2000) (citing Erie R.R. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S.
64, 78 (1938)).
Standard of Review
Granting summary judgment is proper if the pleadings, depositions,
answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the
affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact
and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See
Knabe v. Boury, 114 F.3d 407, 410 n.4 (3d Cir. 1997) (citing FED. R. CIV. P.
56(c)). “[T]his standard provides that the mere existence of some alleged
factual dispute between the parties will not defeat an otherwise properly
amount in controversy is met because the court cannot find to a legal
certainty that the value of plaintiff’s claims are below the statutory
threshold.
3
supported motion for summary judgment; the requirement is that there be
no genuine issue of material fact.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477
U.S. 242, 248 (1986).
In considering a motion for summary judgment, the court must
examine the facts in the light most favorable to the party opposing the
motion. Int’l Raw Materials, Ltd. v. Stauffer Chem. Co., 898 F.2d 946, 949
(3d Cir. 1990). The burden is on the moving party to demonstrate that the
evidence is such that a reasonable jury could not return a verdict for the
nonmoving party. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248. A fact is material when it
might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law. Id. Where
the nonmoving party will bear the burden of proof at trial, the party moving
for summary judgment may meet its burden by establishing that the
evidentiary materials of record, if reduced to admissible evidence, would be
insufficient to carry the nonmovant’s burden of proof at trial. Celotex Corp.
v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). Once the moving party satisfies its
burden, the burden shifts to the nonmoving party, who must go beyond its
pleadings, and designate specific facts by the use of affidavits, depositions,
admissions, or answers to interrogatories demonstrating that there is a
genuine issue for trial. Id. at 324.
4
Discussion
Defendant moves for partial summary judgment on plaintiff’s punitive
damages claims, contending that no evidence of record establishes
defendant’s conduct as outrageous. After a careful review, we agree.
Under Pennsylvania law, punitive damages “are awarded only for
outrageous conduct, that is, for acts done with a bad motive or with
reckless indifference to the interests of others.” Martin v. Johns-Manville
Corp., 494 A.2d 1088, 1097-98 (Pa. 1985). Reckless indifference refers to
a conscious disregard of a risk known to the defendant or a risk “so obvious
that he must . . . have been aware of it, and so great as to make it highly
probable that harm would follow.” Evans v. Phila. Transp. Co., 212 A.2d
440, 443 (Pa. 1965). In evaluating the appropriateness of a punitive
damages claim, the Court must consider not only the offense itself, but also
the circumstances surrounding it, including the wrongdoers’ motives and
the relationships between all the parties involved. Schwartz v. Rockey, 932
A.2d 885, 890 (Pa. 2007); see also Feld v. Merriam, 485 A.2d 742, 747
(Pa. 1984) (citing Chambers v. Montgomery, 192 A.2d 355, 358 (Pa.
1963)).
Here, no evidence of record indicates that the defendant acted
outrageously, that is, with a bad motive or with reckless indifference to
5
plaintiff’s interests. The defendant used an outdoor bin and a truck as
designated areas for members of the public to deposit donated goods.
(Doc. 32, Ex. A, Photographs). One of the defendant’s employees testified
that he was responsible for clearing the area around the truck, “time
permitting.” (Doc. 32, Ex. B., Dep. of Raymond Konewicz, 9-10). At the
time of plaintiff’s fall, signage directed the public to “Please Take Donations
to Truck,” where goods had accumulated both inside and outside of the
truck, notably on the ground in the truck’s immediate vicinity. (Doc. 32, Ex.
A, Photographs). Plaintiff tripped and fell on one of these donated goods
on the ground. (SOF ¶ 3).
Even if the jury were to believe plaintiff’s argument that the defendant
recognized the potential risks of tripping over donated goods that were
improperly maintained, the jury could not find the defendant’s conduct
outrageous. None of plaintiff’s evidence indicates that the defendant
trained employees to improperly maintain recently donated items in a way
that could cause individuals to trip and fall. Similarly, plaintiff has failed to
establish that the defendant had a bad motive or consciously disregarded a
known risk pertaining to temporarily storing recently donated goods.
Ultimately, while plaintiff may be able to prove negligence on the facts
of record, no evidence has been submitted to sufficiently establish punitive
6
damages. As such, the defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment
on plaintiff’s punitive damages claims will be granted.
Conclusion
Based upon the above reasoning, the court will grant the defendant’s
motion for partial summary judgment on plaintiff’s punitive damages claims.
No genuine issues of material fact exist regarding whether defendant acted
outrageously, that is, with a bad motive or with reckless indifference to
plaintiff’s interests. As a result, the defendant is entitled to judgment as a
matter of law on plaintiff’s punitive damages claims. An appropriate order
follows.
Date: January 23, 2017
s/ James M. Munley
JUDGE JAMES M. MUNLEY
United States District Court
7
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?