October 30, 2013

Use of GPS Devices and Punitive Damages—the Devil is in the Details

In a recent issue of first impression in Pennsylvania, Judge Terrence R. Nealon of the Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County examined the availability of punitive damages in cases involving the use of GPS devices while driving. Rockwell v. Glenn Knott and New Prime, Inc. 12 CV 1114 (C.P. Lacka. Co. Aug 13, 2013 Nealon, J.)

In addressing the issue on the defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment, the court held that the viability of a punitive damages claim based upon use of GPS while driving will turn on evidence of how such GPS device was being used—specifically, whether it was dashboard or windshield mounted (or otherwise used in a fashion that maintained a view of the roadway); or whether it was used in a fashion whereby the driver fully diverted his vision from the roadway. This distinction is particularly relevant today, as more drivers are making use of GPS apps on their smartphones, rather than integrated or windshield-mounted dedicated GPS devices.

In Rockwell, the court held “[i]f the GPS device is affixed to the dashboard or windshield of the vehicle, such that the operator maintains peripheral vision of the roadway, a motorist’s split second glimpse at its screen is akin to a momentary glance at a speedometer or side or rearview mirror, and does not constitute reckless indifference or wanton misconduct. However, if a driver completely diverts his or her attention from the roadway to view a GPS device which is not located on a dashboard or windshield, and continues to travel in his or her vehicle without any view of the roadway or other traffic, such driver may be deemed ‘reckless’ and therefore punitive damages may be available.”

What It Means to You

It is important to note that the court in Rockwell did not hold that use of smartphone GPS apps leaves the door open to punitive damages in all cases. In fact, in Rockwell, the driver was using his smartphone GPS app around the time of the accident in question. Specifically, the defendant testified that he glanced down at the GPS (which was sitting in a cupholder), then looked back up to the street sign and roadway before taking his foot off the brake and moving the vehicle forward. As there was no evidence that the driver was looking down at his phone when he began to proceed into the intersection where the accident occurred, the court granted the motion for partial summary judgment and struck the punitive damages count.

It is further important to note that typing a destination into a GPS unit while moving, regardless of where the GPS unit is located, could constitute reckless indifference as a matter of law and thus be grounds for a claim of punitive damages.