COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL-CRIMINAL CONVICTION USED IN CIVIL CASE

Rogers v. Thomas, 2023 Pa. Super. LEXIS 77 (March 2, 2023) (Stabile, J.) On February 11, 2012, Lloyd Thomas shot and killed Joshua Rogers and Gilberto Alvarez while decedents were on property owned by Lloyd’s father, Hayden Thomas. Lloyd subsequently was arrested and charged with involuntary manslaughter of Rogers and Alvarez. The jury found him guilty. In the civil case brought by decedents, the jury found them 100% comparatively negligent. One of the big issues in this case was whether the criminal conviction was collateral estoppel in the civil case, and surprisingly the court said no. In sum, we first conclude that the trial court committed a harmless error when it failed to instruct the jury that Lloyd was negligent in light of the fact Appellants failed to satisfy the element of causation. The jury determined that the conduct of Decedents caused their harm, i.e., death. Second, the trial court did not err in permitting the jury to consider the issue of comparative negligence. Third, to the extent Appellants challenge the nonsuit entered in favor Hayden, they preserved for our review only the claim that sufficient evidence was presented to establish that Hayden knew Lloyd was feebleminded. In this regard, we conclude that Appellants are not entitled to review because they did not produce sufficient evidence to prove that Lloyd could possess the gun used in the shootings only with Hayden’s permission or that Lloyd was under Hayden’s control as a feebleminded adult suffering from a cognitive disability rendering him with a mental capacity of that of a young child. With respect to their fourth issue, challenging the trial court’s grant of Dr. Shovlin’s motion to quash, Appellants obtain no relief. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting the Motion based upon medical necessity, which was exacerbated by the conduct of Appellants’ counsel at Dr. Shovlin’s deposition. Fifth, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting prior bad acts evidence after Appellants opened the door for such evidence by introducing testimony that Decedents were upstanding individuals. We decline to address the merits of Appellants’ sixth, seventh and eighth issues, because Appellants failed to preserve them for our review. As a result, the issues are waived. Finally, Appellants are not entitled to relief on their claim that the trial court erred in coordinating these cases because they did not timely file an interlocutory appeal under Rule 311(c). Thus, this issue is waived. Relatedly, Appellants’ claim that their respective cases should not have been consolidated also lacks merit. The operative facts in both cases were the same and no undue prejudice resulted. Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion. We, therefore, affirm the trial court’s November 21, 2018 judgment in favor of Appellees and against Appellants. Judgment affirmed. Application to strike denied. Application to expand word limited granted. Jurisdiction relinquished.