HARRISBURG – The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT) has filed a brief to dismiss litigation from a Georgia couple who alleged that a state-maintained guardrail safety system along Interstate 81 failed to decelerate their vehicle, when the vehicle made contact with the guardrail and it speared through the vehicle to injure its driver.
John Carroll and Dawn Carroll of Blairsville, Ga. first filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania on Feb. 18 versus the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s Department of Transportation of Harrisburg and ABC Corporations 1-4.
“On Feb. 20, 2020, plaintiffs John and Dawn Carroll were involved in a single-vehicle collision on Interstate 81 south of Carlyle, Pennsylvania. During the collision, plaintiffs’ vehicle veered too far into the left-hand shoulder of the interstate highway and struck the ‘end terminal’ of a guardrail system that was just beginning along that section of the highway,” the suit said.
“When a vehicle is involved in a head-on or angled collision with an ‘end terminal,’ a properly installed and maintained guardrail system is intended to absorb the energy of the vehicle by bending and ‘gating’ out of the way of the vehicle to allow the vehicle to decelerate and ultimately stop in as safe a manner as possible.”
However, the litigation alleged that due to the defendants’ improper installation, inspection, and/or maintenance of the guardrail system in question, the guardrail did not react to the collision with the plaintiffs’ vehicle as anticipated or designed. Instead, the guardrail speared through the entire interior compartment of plaintiffs’ vehicle and seriously injured plaintiff John Carroll.
“Defendants were negligent and/or reckless in their failure to reasonably install, inspect, and/or maintain the subject guardrail, which compromised the efficacy of the guardrail system and increased the likelihood of injury from a crash with the subject guardrail. The compromised condition of the subject guardrail directly led to the guardrail and end terminal penetrating plaintiffs’ vehicle and spearing through it,” the suit stated.
“Defendants knew, or should have known, that disregarding safety and quality assurance in the installation and maintenance of the subject guardrail presented a substantial risk of serious injury or death. Despite this knowledge, defendants ignored and/or chose to bypass safety measures and quality assurance protocols and standards for ensuring the integrity of the subject guardrail through proper inspections and maintenance. Defendants acted with reckless disregard for the safety of plaintiff John Carroll and other drivers on the road. Defendants’ negligent and/or reckless actions and omissions were the direct and proximate cause of plaintiff John Carroll’s injuries.”
UPDATE
PennDOT responded with a motion to dismiss on March 31, for reasons of failure to state a claim by which relief could be granted.
“Pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), defendant, the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, through counsel, hereby moves to dismiss the complaint. A brief in support of the motion will be filed within the time requirements of Local Rule 7.5. Wherefore, the Court should dismiss the complaint,” the motion stated.
On April 16, PennDOT supplemented its own motion with a brief to dismiss the case.
“Sovereign immunity is not waived for the actions against the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in general. Therefore, pursuant to 1 Pa. C.S.A. Section 2310, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, as an entity, enjoys absolute immunity from suit. Paragraph 11 of the complaint identifies the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania as a Defendant. Because the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania maintains absolute immunity from suit pursuant to the pursuant to the Sovereign Immunity Act, plaintiffs failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted as a matter of law against the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Therefore, the claims against the Commonwealth should be dismissed with prejudice,” according to the brief, in part.
“The complaint alleges at various points that the defendants acted recklessly. However, these claims fail as a matter of law because Commonwealth parties can only be found liability for allegations of negligence. The clear and unambiguous language of the Sovereign Immunity Act indicates the General Assembly’s express intent to waive sovereign immunity as a defense only in those instances where the injury is caused by the negligent act(s) of a Commonwealth party. A claim of ‘recklessness’ is distinct from negligence. Therefore, any claims based on recklessness should be dismissed with prejudice. Typically, a claim of recklessness would be made in conjunction with a request for punitive damages. However, punitive damages are not enumerated as a recoverable damage against a Commonwealth party in 42 Pa. C.S. Section 8528(c). The Legislature made it clear in the Sovereign Immunity Act that punitive damages are not recoverable against a Commonwealth defendant.”
For counts of negligence, vicarious liability, negligent infliction of emotional distress and loss of consortium, the plaintiffs are seeking damages, jointly and severally, in excess of $75,000, exclusive of attorney’s fees, costs of suit, punitive damages and all other damages deemed appropriate by this Court.
The plaintiffs are represented by Andrew J. Sciolla of Sciolla Law Firm in Philadelphia, plus T. Matthew Leckman of Leckman Law, of Elkins Park.
The defendants are represented by Nicole R. DiTomo of the Pennsylvania Attorney General’s Office, in Norristown.
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania case 1:22-cv-00242
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com