In a May 12, 2014, Memorandum Opinion, the Superior Court affirmed a multi-million dollar verdict in a trucking case where more than one million dollars in punitive damages was awarded. In so doing, the court rejected one of the defendants’ central arguments: that the plaintiff’s expert offered impermissible opinion testimony on the issue of whether the defendants’ conduct constituted “reckless indifference,” thus invading the province of the jury. Kuchwara v. Williams and Valvano Construction, Inc., (Pa. Super. 2014).

At trial, the plaintiff offered testimony of an expert in safety practices, compliance with state and federal regulations, maintenance programs, and operation of vehicles similar to those used by the defendants. The plaintiff’s expert testified as follows:

“The very fundamental foundation of a safe operation is the qualification of the drivers and making sure that you hire safe, qualified drivers. The only way to do that is to go through the qualification process we just talked about with the background checks and everything else. A company that fails to do that clearly is showing a reckless indifference for safety…”

The defendants objected to this testimony on the grounds that it was not within the proper scope of expert testimony, constituted a legal conclusion, and invaded the province of the jury. See: Houdeshell v. Rice, 939 A.2d 981 (Pa. Super. 2007). The trial court permitted the testimony.

In affirming the ruling of the Trial Court, the Superior Court noted that Pennsylvania law does indeed permit expert opinion testimony on the ultimate issue. The test to be used is whether the helpfulness of such testimony is outweighed by its potential to cause undue prejudice or confusion. The court noted that the helpfulness of such testimony will not be outweighed by its potential prejudice where the proper factual foundation is laid. In Kuchwara, the factual foundation included testimony by employees confirming indifference to a litany of safety protocols, including a failure to register the vehicles, failure to keep any inspection records, and severe maintenance deficiencies regarding the truck in question.

What It Means to You

The Kuchwara opinion does not rewrite the law to provide experts with license to opine that a defendant has acted with reckless indifference in any case. It does, however, signal that the courts will allow a plaintiff to offer expert opinion testimony that conduct constitutes reckless indifference to the rights of others, provided there is a sufficient factual foundation for the same.