Eckroth v. Pennsylvania Electric, Inc.
12 A.3d 422
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2010Background
- Fire at Sexton/Hammond residence on May 14, 2005, killing multiple occupants; service to the home was terminated by Penelec on May 11, 2005 for chronic nonpayment.
- Plaintiffs alleged Penelec’s termination, handling, or restoration of electrical service contributed to the fire and resulting deaths.
- Residents failed to use safe lighting; a candle was lit by Sexton on May 13 and unattended overnight in a bathroom shelf area.
- Home occupants included Sexton, Dolores Hammond, Chelsey Hammond, Kimberly Brantner, and Jordan English; two nights elapsed between termination and the fire.
- Penelec, along with OSI/IPI, faced negligence claims; Gunther and Sexton were additional defendants, with Gunther alleged to be negligent for fire-safety maintenance.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Penelec and OSI; appellate court affirmed, ruling Penelec’s conduct was not proximate cause as a matter of law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Penelec’s termination of power was the proximate cause of the fatal fire. | Brantner argues Penelec’s failure to properly handle termination caused the fire. | Penelec contends the termination was not a proximate cause given intervening acts and time delay. | No proximate causation; the link between termination and fire is too remote as a matter of law. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lux v. Gerald E. Ort Trucking, Inc., 887 A.2d 1281 (Pa.Super.2005) (proximate cause requires substantial factor in producing harm)
- Reilly v. Tiergarten Inc., 633 A.2d 208 (Pa.Super.1993) (causation requirements; proximate cause as threshold legal question)
- Brown v. Philadelphia College of Osteopathic Medicine, 760 A.2d 863 (Pa.Super.2000) (proximate cause and foreseeability in causation)
- Holt v. Navarro, 932 A.2d 915 (Pa.Super.2007) (proximate cause involves foreseeability and policy considerations)
- Dudley v. USX Corp., 606 A.2d 916 (Pa.Super.1992) (summary judgment standards; when to assess causation)
- McDonald v. Marriott Corp., 564 A.2d 1296 (Pa.Super.1989) (summary judgment standard of review)