Meerhoff, C. v. McCray, D.
1392 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Sep 29, 2017Background
- On Oct. 29, 2012 a farmhouse fire killed Jeremy Meerhoff and seriously injured Steven Little after both had been drinking and had driven recklessly on the property, damaging power lines and structures.
- Plaintiffs (Carol Meerhoff as administratrix and Little) sued homeowner Donald McCray, McCray Aluminum, and Penelec alleging negligence including failure to install smoke/CO detectors and improper marking of a guy wire.
- Plaintiffs’ experts (mechanical engineers) were excluded for lack of electrical/fire‑origin expertise; plaintiffs failed to produce a qualified electrical/fire‑origin expert within the court’s time allowance.
- Plaintiffs failed to respond to McCray Aluminum’s requests for admissions served near the discovery deadline; those matters were deemed admitted (including that McCray Aluminum had no role in the farmhouse).
- The trial court granted summary judgment for all defendants, finding (1) no legal duty on a private homeowner to install smoke/CO detectors, (2) plaintiffs failed to prove an electrical cause of the fire, (3) admissions and failure to pierce the corporate veil defeated claims against McCray Aluminum, and (4) plaintiffs’ wanton misconduct (drunken, destructive conduct) far exceeded any defendant negligence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Duty to install smoke/CO detectors | McCray, as owner of premises where plaintiffs were licensees, had duty to protect from unreasonable risks (include detectors) | No statute or precedent imposes duty on private, non‑commercial homeowner to install detectors; duty is not recognized by law | No duty; court declines to impose requirement absent legislative authority |
| Existence/functioning of detectors | Whether working detectors were present is a factual dispute | Irrelevant if no legal duty exists | Moot — irrelevant because no duty established |
| Liability of McCray Aluminum / pierce corporate veil | McCray Aluminum should be liable; plaintiffs sought to pierce veil | Requests for admissions were unanswered and thus admitted that McCray Aluminum had no involvement or ownership of property | Admissions deemed admitted; veil‑piercing not reached but unnecessary given no duty by owner |
| Admissibility/adequacy of expert proof re: electrical origin | Plaintiffs’ experts opined electrical origin and marker issue | Experts are mechanical engineers without requisite electrical/fire‑origin qualifications; plaintiffs given time to supply proper expert but failed | Expert reports excluded; plaintiffs failed to prove electrical cause; summary judgment appropriate |
| Comparative/wanton misconduct vs. Penelec negligence | Plaintiffs contend comparative negligence for jury | Defendants point to plaintiffs’ wanton misconduct (heavy intoxication, vandalism, damaging wires) which overwhelmingly caused risk | Court finds wanton misconduct greatly exceeds any defendant negligence and bars recovery under the circumstances; summary judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Echeverria v. Holley, 142 A.3d 29 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2016) (landlord duty to provide smoke detection in rental context)
- Wexler v. Hecht, 847 A.2d 95 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2004) (two‑step inquiry for expert qualification)
- Lackner v. Glosser, 892 A.2d 21 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2006) (summary judgment and Rule 1035.2 standards)
- DeWeese v. Anchor Hocking Consumer & Indus. Prods. Group, 628 A.2d 421 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1993) (party must produce evidence beyond complaint to defeat summary judgment)
- Terwilliger v. Kitchen, 781 A.2d 1201 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2001) (principles of comparative negligence)
- Nobles v. Staples, Inc., 150 A.3d 110 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2016) (standard of review for admission of expert testimony)