PHILADELPHIA – A federal judge has partially granted a dismissal motion in a lawsuit brought by the mother of a 32-year-old man who died from cardiac arrest while aboard a Greyhound bus bound for Philadelphia over two years ago, litigation which argued the Greyhound and Flixbus transportation companies were negligent, reckless and responsible for his death.
Dawn Louise Mannella (individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of Joseph E. Bracken) initially filed suit in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas on July 20 versus Greyhound and Greyhound Lines, Inc. of Philadelphia, Flixbus, Flixbus, Inc. and Flix North America, Inc. of Dallas, Texas, and ABC Corporations 1-4.
“On Aug. 12, 2021, 32-year old Joseph Bracken boarded a Greyhound bus in Greenville, South Carolina, scheduled to arrive in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on Aug. 13, 2021. Upon information and belief, the defendants owned, operated, and controlled the subject bus, transportation services, and bus terminals at issue in this lawsuit. At all times pertinent hereto, the bus driver was an employee and/or agent of all defendants,” the suit stated.
“During the course of Joseph’s trip from Greenville to Philadelphia, Dawn Mannella, Joseph’s mother, spoke with Joseph multiple times over the phone. Joseph told Dawn he and the other passengers were extremely hot on the bus, as the air conditioning in the bus was not working. The only source of air was a small fan blowing on the driver. Despite temperatures reaching up to 98 degrees in Baltimore, a stop on the bus’s route, and 95 degrees in Philadelphia, the bus continued operating without air conditioning for the passengers. Passengers asked the bus driver to request a bus with working air conditioning, but the driver declined.”
The suit continued that the last time Ms. Mannella spoke with her son, the bus had departed from Baltimore, and Mr. Bracken told Ms. Mannella he estimated an arrival in Philadelphia in approximately 45 minutes. During this conversation, Mr. Bracken reported a migraine, due to the conditions of the bus in the heat.
The bus arrived in Philadelphia at the defendant Greyhound Terminal at approximately 7 p.m. on Aug. 13, 2021. Greyhound employees and the driver left Joseph’s luggage on the sidewalk at the defendant Greyhound Terminal.
After unloading the luggage and the other passengers departed, the driver parked the bus in the lot, located at 9th and Filbert Streets. The driver did not conduct a search of the bus, prior to or after parking the bus in the lot.
“Ms. Mannella began calling Mr. Bracken, when he did not call at arrival and had not arrived at her home in Collingdale. More than an hour after arrival, another bus driver boarded the bus to prepare the bus for travel, when the driver found Mr. Bracken unresponsive on the bus. Mr. Bracken had a pulse and the paramedics ran him on a gurney from 9th and Filbert Streets down to Thomas Jefferson University Hospital. During this time, Ms. Mannella continued to call her son. Finally, at approximately 10:30 p.m., a physician at TJUH answered Dawn’s call on her son’s phone. TJUH informed Dawn that Joseph was left trapped on the bus for several hours after experiencing a cardiac arrest. Due to the significant time in which Joseph was left unattended on the hot bus, he suffered catastrophic anoxic brain and organ damage,” the suit said.
“Mr. Bracken succumbed to his injuries two days later on Aug. 15, 2021. TJUH reported to Ms. Mannella that had her son been found sooner, that he would be alive. Defendants never contacted the police to conduct a timely investigation of the conduct at issue. As a proximate result of the defendants’ negligence as set forth above and further herein, Mr. Bracken suffered severe conscious pain and suffering and ultimately death.”
The defendants removed the action to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on Aug. 8, citing diversity of citizenship between the parties and amount in damages contested greater than $75,000.
The defendants motioned to dismiss punitive damages and certain claims from the case on Aug. 15, arguing that the plaintiffs cannot prove the criteria which would necessitate such a penalty – namely, that the defendants’ conduct was “malicious, wanton, reckless, willful or oppressive”, nor can they prove those aforementioned claims with sufficient specificity.
“Even if all of the facts alleged in the complaint are accepted as true, plaintiffs’ allegations do not come close to pleading the level of outrageous conduct that is required to substantiate a claim for punitive damages. Plaintiffs’ allegations that moving defendants failed to provide working air conditioning, failed to have life-saving equipment, and were negligent, if accepted a true, are not sufficient grounds to plead punitive damages. Even if the air conditioning was inadequate or inoperable, that in no way would suggest intentional, reckless or malicious conduct on behalf of moving defendants. Moreover, any lack of unnamed and unidentified life-saving equipment summarily is insufficient to maintain a claim for punitive damages. Plaintiffs also fail to allege a cause of death in the complaint,” the dismissal motion stated.
“Taking all the facts pled in the complaint as true, plaintiffs have failed to meet the necessary burden to sustain a claim for punitive damages as alleged in Counts I and II of the complaint. Plaintiffs have failed to allege facts that suggest intentional, reckless or malicious conduct on the part of the moving defendants which is required for a reward of punitive damages. Thus, plaintiffs’ claim for recklessness and punitive damages should be dismissed.”
Plaintiff counsel filed a response to the dismissal motion on Aug. 28, arguing that they “more than sufficiently pled facts of outrageousness required to recover punitive damages.”
“Defendants breached their duty of care in failing to implement certain policies including the securing of the bus without any remaining passengers. Defendants breached their duty of care in failing to have adequate life-saving equipment on the bus and/or terminal. Defendants breached their duty of care in failing to have adequately-trained employees or agents on the use of life-saving equipment on the bus and/or terminal. Defendants breached their duty of care in failing to provide working vehicles such as those with air conditioning in 98-degree heat. As a direct and proximate result of defendant negligence and recklessness as set forth in the complaint, Bracken suffered catastrophic injuries resulting in death. The defendants’ aforementioned negligence increased the risk that Bracken would suffer the harm that he did in fact endure,” according to the response.
“The averments in plaintiffs’ complaint are sufficient to state a claim for punitive damages, because the factual setting involves death brought on by long exposure to excessive heat on a bus which failed to comply with federal regulations concerning functioning equipment, compounded by the driver’s open disregard for passengers complaining of heat and asking for a different bus, followed by the driver’s failure to ensure that the passengers – specifically plaintiff – alighted safely. This is a clear violation of the duty of care and of federal regulations. It is well-settled in this Commonwealth that a common carrier owes its passengers the highest degree of care and diligence in carrying them to their destination, in setting them down at the terminus of their journey, and in enabling them to alight safely. As demonstrated in plaintiff’s complaint, the heat on the bus in question was in excess of 98 degrees for an extended period of time. Plaintiff has more than sufficiently pled facts of outrageousness required to recover punitive damages. Furthermore, plaintiff has plead with ample sufficient specificity, as required by the Federal Rules of Procedure, in their complaint, and in particular in subparagraph (m) in Paragraphs 50 and 62 of the complaint. For those reasons, defendants’ motion to dismiss should be denied.”
UPDATE
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Judge Cynthia M. Rufe issued a partial grant and partial denial of the dismissal motion without prejudice, in a Nov. 27 order.
While Rufe denied the motion to dismiss allegations of recklessness and punitive damages, the judge granted the motion for a more definite statement and struck the (m)-lettered portions from Paragraphs 50 and 62 of the complaint.
“The complaint alleges that the decedent, Joseph Bracken, traveled from South Carolina to Philadelphia in August 2021, on a Greyhound bus with broken air conditioning. Despite complaints from passengers, the bus driver (who had a small fan) refused to request a bus with air conditioning. When the bus arrived in Philadelphia, Mr. Bracken’s luggage was unloaded and left on the sidewalk. The driver did not check the bus after parking it, and it was not until an hour later that another driver boarded the bus and discovered Mr. Bracken, who was unresponsive. At the hospital, Mr. Bracken was determined to have suffered cardiac arrest and anoxic brain and organ damage from the heat on the bus, and unfortunately, died two days later,” Rufe said.
“Plaintiff asserts claims of negligence and contends that defendants showed reckless indifference to the well-being of Mr. Bracken. Under Pennsylvania law, punitive damages ‘may be awarded for conduct that is outrageous, because of the defendant’s evil motive or his reckless indifference to the rights of others.’ To meet the standard for punitive damages, a plaintiff must show that ‘(1) A defendant had a subjective appreciation of the risk of harm to which the plaintiff was exposed and that (2) He acted, or failed to act, as the case may be, in conscious disregard of that risk.’ Plaintiff has alleged that Mr. Bracken was subjected to excessive temperatures on a long bus ride despite passengers repeatedly making the driver aware of the conditions. These allegations are sufficient to allow the claim for punitive damages to proceed to discovery.”
Rufe also opined on her decision to grant the motion for a more definite statement.
“Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(e), ‘A party may move for a more definite statement of a pleading to which a responsive pleading is allowed but which is so vague or ambiguous that the party cannot reasonably prepare a response.’ A motion under Rule 12(e) is appropriate ‘when a complaint does not disclose the facts underlying a plaintiff’s claim for relief such that the defendant cannot reasonably be expected to frame a proper, fact-specific defense.’ The allegations seeking to hold defendants liable for ‘such other acts or omissions as shall be discovered during the course of proper discovery under the applicable Pennsylvania Rules of Procedure’ require defendants to speculate as to the allegations against them and do not provide a basis for defendants to respond,” Rufe said.
Rufe further ordered that the plaintiff may file an amended complaint no later than Dec. 11 – and that if the plaintiff did not do so, the defendants may file an answer to the complaint no later than Dec. 22.
For multiple counts of negligence, survival and wrongful death, the plaintiff is seeking damages, jointly, severally and/or individually, in excess of the jurisdictional requirement to guarantee a jury trial, delay damages, and such other recoverable damages.
The plaintiff is represented by Lane R. Jubb Jr. of The Beasley Firm, in Philadelphia.
The defendants are represented by Justin A. Bayer of Kane Pugh Knoell Troy & Kramer, in Blue Bell.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 2:23-cv-03050
Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas case 230602060
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com