Keystone Freight Corp. v. Stricker
31 A.3d 967
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2011Background
- Keystone Freight's operation caused a fatal accident involving Zalinski, with disputed opinions on whether it resulted from the decedent's heart attack or vehicle back-up.
- Zalinski's death was ultimately deemed natural by Dr. Ahmad; Dr. Callery later disputed this finding but remained unconvinced.
- Appellees pursued survival and wrongful death actions against Keystone and the truck driver, based on accident reconstruction and medical testimony.
- Keystone filed a Dragonetti Act action alleging Appellees acted with gross negligence or without probable cause and for improper purpose; the trial court granted summary judgment for Appellees.
- On appeal, Keystone contends Appellees lacked probable cause or acted with gross negligence, and that the proceedings were commenced for improper purposes; the Superior Court affirms.
- The court holds that Appellees had probable cause and did not act with gross negligence; the underlying action terminated in Keystone's favor.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether probable cause existed | Keystone argues Appellees lacked probable cause to sue. | Sellers/Kardos contend there was probable cause based on expert testimony lending cognizable claims. | Probable cause existed. |
| Whether gross negligence was shown | Keystone claims gross negligence in initiating/continuing suit. | Appellees presented reasoned arguments supported by experts; no gross negligence shown. | No gross negligence proven. |
| Whether the action was brought with improper purpose | Keystone asserts improper purpose for harassment or other motives. | Appellees lacked evidence of improper purpose; claims grounded in evidentiary expert testimony. | No improper purpose shown. |
Key Cases Cited
- Meiksin v. Howard Hanna Co., Inc., 404 Pa.Super. 417 (1991) (Dragonetti element: lack of probable cause not inferred from verdict alone)
- Morris v. DiPaolo, 930 A.2d 500 (Pa. Super. 2007) (attorney may rely on client facts if slight chance of success)
- Buchleitner v. Perer, 794 A.2d 366 (Pa. Super. 2002) (gross negligence standard: want of even scant care)
- Hart v. O'Malley, 781 A.2d 1211 (Pa. Super. 2001) (definition of gross negligence)
- Capek v. Devito, 767 A.2d 1047 (Pa. 2001) (standard of review for summary judgment)
- Pennsylvania State University v. County of Centre, 532 Pa. 142 (1992) (review of facts on summary judgment; plenary on law)