Wilson, K. v. U.S. Security Associates, Inc.
Wilson, K. v. U.S. Security Associates, Inc. No. 12 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jul 18, 2017Background
- On Sept. 9, 2010 Yvonne Hiller (a suspended Kraft employee) returned to a Kraft/Nabisco plant with a .357 revolver, re-entered the building after confronting USSA security guards, then shot and killed two co-workers and severely wounded a third. Hiller was later criminally convicted.
- USSA provided contracted security at the plant. Two USSA guards escorted Hiller off premises but left her to walk to her car alone; she later returned, gained re-entry at gunpoint, and then carried out the shootings.
- Plaintiffs (estates of the deceased and the surviving victim) sued USSA for wrongful death/survival claims and originally withdrew punitive-damages allegations by stipulation in 2012 (language alleging “reckless, outrageous, intentional and/or wanton” conduct was stricken “without prejudice as to USSA only”).
- In October 2014 (after the statute of limitations), plaintiffs moved mid-trial to re-add punitive damages; the trial court allowed the amendment during the first trial and a second trial later awarded punitive damages of $38,512,600 (combined verdict about $46.5M). USSA objected and sought JNOV.
- The Superior Court held that permitting the late amendment (to reinstate punitive damages after the limitations period and after the prior stipulation) was legal error and prejudicial; it reversed the punitive-damages award (JNOV on punitive damages) but affirmed the compensatory negligence verdicts against USSA on causation and denial of molding for tort-release arguments. The court also rejected plaintiffs’ request to add pre-impact (pre-shooting) fear-and-fright survival damages.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiffs could amend mid-trial to add punitive damages after earlier stipulation and after statute of limitations | The punitive claim is an element of damages, not a new cause of action, and the prior stipulation was "without prejudice," allowing reinstatement | Reinstatement after limitations expired and after stipulation improperly introduced a new cause of action and prejudiced USSA | Amendment was improper: adding punitive damages after limitations/stipulation was error; second punitive trial reversed (JNOV on punitive damages) |
| Whether punitive damages were supportable against USSA (vicarious liability) | Evidence of guards’ conduct (false reports, failure to notify management) supported finding of outrageous misconduct and punitive damages | Even if negligent, conduct did not rise to level supporting punitive damages; defendant also argued prejudice from late identification of its expert | Court did not reach merits because amendment was untimely; vacated punitive award on procedural grounds (no need to decide substantive sufficiency) |
| Sufficiency of evidence for negligence causation (did USSA’s breaches proximately cause deaths) | USSA’s failures (not escorting fully; not notifying Kraft management) increased risk and were substantial factors in allowing Hiller to re-enter and carry out shootings | Failures (e.g., not escorting all the way) were speculative and too remote to be proximate causes; guards were frightened and called 911 | Jury verdict on compensatory damages and causation affirmed; failure to escort was not a proximate cause but failure to notify management could be a substantial factor and supported liability |
| Whether verdict should be molded to reflect Kraft releases or to award pre-impact fear-and-fright survival damages | Plaintiffs sought (1) pre-impact fear-and-fright damages for decedents and (2) mold to account for joint-tortfeasor releases (Kraft) | USSA argued releases and joint-tortfeasor principles reduce/mold its liability; punitive-insurance correspondence admissibility also contested | Court refused to award pre-impact fear-and-fright survival damages (Pennsylvania law limits survival damages to pain/suffering after injury); releases did not reduce USSA’s liability because Hiller was not a Kraft employee at time of shootings (employment effectively terminated) |
Key Cases Cited
- Beckner v. Copeland Corp., 785 A.2d 1003 (Pa. Super. 2001) (amendment may not introduce new cause of action after statute of limitations)
- Daley v. John Wanamaker, Inc., 464 A.2d 355 (Pa. Super. 1983) (amendments freely allowed but cannot introduce a new cause after limitations where prejudice results)
- Willett v. Evergreen Homes, Inc., 595 A.2d 164 (Pa. Super. 1991) (amendment proposing different theory or operative facts may create a new cause of action)
- Hutchison ex rel. Hutchison v. Luddy, 870 A.2d 766 (Pa. 2005) (punitive damages may be available in negligent supervision/Section 317 contexts where facts warrant; does not address reinstatement past limitations)
- Feld v. Merriam, 485 A.2d 742 (Pa. 1984) (when one offers a security program, duty is to perform it with reasonable care under the circumstances)
- Kerns v. Methodist Hosp., 574 A.2d 1068 (Pa. Super. 1990) (once a party undertakes to provide security, it must do so with reasonable care; program-of-security standard applied)
- Hamil v. Bashline, 392 A.2d 1280 (Pa. 1978) (Section 323 principles: negligent undertaking increases risk and can support proximate causation)