The C&W Journal previously reported on the decision of a Northampton County Court of Common Pleas case, Xander v. Kiss, wherein the Court held that using a cellular telephone while driving–without anything more–is insufficient to support a claim for punitive damages. The punitive damages claim was dismissed by way of preliminary objections. The article regarding Xander v. Kiss can be found by clicking here.

The same issue was recently addressed by United States Magistrate Judge Lynne A. Sitarski of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. In Piester v. Hickey, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant had looked at his mobile telephone just before rear-ending the plaintiff’s vehicle.

Judge Sitarski found that plaintiff pled insufficient facts to establish outrageous behavior on Hickey’s part that would support a claim for punitive damages. Judge Sitarski acknowledged little case law on the issue and that she found the analysis of Judge Zito in the Xander case to be persuasive.

 

What It Means to You

Neither the state court nor the federal court created or supported a bright line rule on the issue of punitive damages for mobile telephone usage while driving. Both judges made clear that their decisions were limited to the facts pled.

Since there is no bright line rile, we anticipate that the plaintiff’s bar will continue to push the envelope. The more sophisticated plaintiff’s attorneys will begin to pepper their complaints with additional facts related to the mobile telephone usage in the hope of overcoming the pleading hurdle, and then using the punitive damages claim as leverage for settlement.

The analysis may have been different in both cases had there been applicable statutes regarding the use of mobile telephones at the time and place of the accident. This is a developing area of the law that should be monitored as it may have a significant impact on certain cases.