Straw, J. v. Fair, K. v. Pittsburgh Lubes
187 A.3d 966
Pa. Super. Ct.2018Background
- On May 1, 2012, a Pontiac Vibe driven by Thomas Straw stopped in the travel lane on Route 28 after the hood suddenly opened; Kirk Fair, driving a Golon Masonry truck, struck the Vibe from behind, killing the Straws’ six‑year‑old son and injuring other family members.
- Fair later pleaded guilty to multiple offenses including four counts of recklessly endangering another person based on the collision; he was sentenced in 2014.
- Plaintiffs sued Fair and Golon Masonry (Appellants), seeking compensatory and punitive damages; Appellants filed cross‑claims against Thomas Straw and third‑party complaints joining Tower Auto (inspection), Jiffy Lube, and NAPA (alleged inspections/repairs of the hood latch).
- At summary judgment the trial court granted (1) Plaintiffs’ motion dismissing Appellants’ cross‑claim against Thomas Straw and (2) Tower Auto, Jiffy Lube, and NAPA’s motions, concluding those entities owed no duty and that Fair’s reckless criminal acts were a superseding cause.
- After a jury trial on compensatory damages the jury returned a large verdict for Plaintiffs; Appellants appealed the summary judgment rulings concerning the Additional Defendants and the dismissal of the cross‑claim against Straw.
- The Superior Court vacated the judgment and remanded, holding the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to the Additional Defendants and in dismissing the cross‑claim against Thomas Straw because genuine issues of material fact existed on duty, breach, causation, and apportionment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Tower Auto, Jiffy Lube, and NAPA owed duties for negligent performance/undertaking and whether summary judgment was proper | Plaintiffs argued the trial court correctly dismissed those third parties (trial court found no duty/proximate cause) | Appellants argued each additional defendant undertook services (inspection/repair/advice), breached duties under Restatement §§ 323/324A, and thus created jury questions | Reversed: genuine issues exist whether those entities undertook services, breached duties, and whether their negligence was a factual and proximate cause; summary judgment improper |
| Whether Fair’s reckless/criminal conduct was a superseding cause absolving Additional Defendants | Plaintiffs/the trial court treated Fair’s guilty plea as establishing recklessness and a superseding intervening cause | Appellants argued Fair’s recklessness was foreseeable and not per se superseding; proximate‑cause determination is for the jury | Reversed: whether Fair’s conduct was an unforeseeable superseding cause is normally a jury question; criminality alone does not automatically supersede liability |
| Whether the trial court properly dismissed Appellants’ cross‑claim against Thomas Straw | Plaintiffs argued comparative negligence principles barred cross‑claims because Fair acted recklessly (and recklessness cannot be compared with negligence) | Appellants argued Straw was negligent and should be liable or liable over; apportionment/contribution permissible between reckless and negligent tortfeasors under PA law | Reversed: dismissal improper—there is a triable issue whether Straw’s conduct contributed and apportionment/contribution between reckless and negligent defendants is permitted under 42 Pa.C.S. § 7102(a.1) and UCATA |
| Whether lapse of time between inspections/repairs and the accident negates causation | Plaintiffs/trial court relied on temporal gaps and intervening events to defeat causation and duty | Appellants relied on expert and investigative evidence that incorrect or temporary repairs (penetrating oil vs. proper degreasing/grease) masked a longstanding defect that foreseeably increased risk | Reversed: lapse of time does not per se eliminate proximate cause where evidence supports that prior negligent work created or increased the risk leading to the harm; factfinder must decide |
Key Cases Cited
- Feld v. Merriam, 485 A.2d 742 (Pa. 1984) (adopts Restatement § 323 for negligent performance of an undertaking)
- Cantwell v. Allegheny County, 483 A.2d 1350 (Pa. 1984) (recognizes Restatement § 324A liability to third persons for negligent performance of an undertaking)
- Jones v. Montefiore Hosp., 431 A.2d 920 (Pa. 1981) (proximate cause inquiry: defendant’s conduct must be a substantial factor; ordinarily a jury question)
- Vattimo v. Lower Bucks Hosp., Inc., 465 A.2d 1231 (Pa. 1983) (discusses legal cause as policy decision and jury role)
- Powell v. Drumheller, 653 A.2d 619 (Pa. 1995) (criminal conduct is not automatically a superseding cause; foreseeability and jury determination required)
- Summers v. Certainteed Corp., 997 A.2d 1152 (Pa. 2010) (summary judgment standards; credibility of expert opinions for trier of fact)