July 23rd, 2019 by Rieders Travis in Damages


Dutra Group vs. Batterton, 2019 U.S. LEXIS 4202.   This case asks whether a mariner may recover punitive damages on a claim that he was injured as a result of the unseaworthy condition of the vessel.   We have twice confronted similar questions in the past several decades, and our holdings in both cases were based on the particular claims involved.  In Miles, which concerned a wrongful-death claim under the general maritime law, we held that recovery was limited to pecuniary damages, which did not include loss of society.  498 U.S., at 23.  And in Atlantic Sounding, after examining centuries of relevant case law, we held that the award on the traditional maritime claim of maintenance and cure.  557 U.S. at 4017.  Here, because there is no historical basis for allowing punitive damages in unseaworthiness actions, and in order to promote uniformity with the way courts have applied parallel statutory causes of action, we hold that punitive damages remain unavailable in unseaworthiness actions.


Murga v. Lehigh Valley Physicians Grp. 2018 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 3053 (November 26, 2018) Johnson, J.-Court would not grant partial summary judgment on negligent affliction of emotional distress claim. Plaintiff argued that NIED claims have evolved and broadened in Pennsylvania and that her NIED claims were appropriate under multiple theories of recovery including the duty of care arising from a special relationship, a physical impact theory and a bystander theory. The court distinguished between transitory, nonrecurring physical phenomena like fright as opposed to depression, nightmares, stress and anxiety. Plaintiff’s severe emotional and psychological injuries which were accompanied by physical injuries, pain and suffering are sufficient to satisfy the physical harm requirement. 


Dittman v. UPMC, 2018 Pa. LEXIS 6051 (Pa. S.Ct. November 21, 2018) Baer, J.  We granted discretionary review in this matter to determine whether an employer has a legal duty to use reasonable care to safeguard its employees’ sensitive personal information that the employer stores on an internet-accessible computer system. We also examine the scope of Pennsylvania’s economic loss doctrine, specifically whether it permits recovery in negligence for purely pecuniary damages. For the reasons discussed below, we hold that an employer has a legal duty to exercise reasonable care to safeguard its employees’ sensitive personal information stored by the employer on an internet-accessible computer system. We further hold that, under Pennsylvania’s economic loss doctrine, recovery for purely pecuniary damages is permissible under a negligence theory provided that the plaintiff can establish the defendant’s breach of a legal duty arising under common law that is independent of any duty assumed pursuant to contract. As the Superior Court came to the opposite conclusions, we now vacate its judgment.

We conclude that the lower courts erred in finding that UPMC did not owe a duty to Employees to exercise reasonable care in collecting and storing their personal and financial information on its computer systems. This conclusion notwithstanding, Employees’ claim cannot proceed if we nonetheless hold that it is barred by the economic loss doctrine.

Purely “economic loss” may be recoverable under a variety of tort theories. The question, thus, is not whether the damages are physical or economic. Rather, the question of whether the plaintiff may maintain an action in tort for purely economic loss turns on the determination of the source of the duty plaintiff claims the defendant owed. A breach of a duty which arises under the provisions of a contract between the parties must be redressed under contract, and a tort action will not lie. A breach of duty arising independently of any contract duties between the parties, however, may support a tort action.

Here, there is a claim under § 552 of the Restatement of Torts which does not require privity.  The Economic Loss Doctrine is inapplicable to negligent representation claims under § 552.


Gray v. Huntzinger, 147 A.3d 924 (Pa. Super. 2016).  The Pennsylvania Supreme Court clearly articulated in Kazatsky (Kazatsky v. King David Memorial Park, Inc., 527 A.2d 988 (1987)) that to the extent the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress is recognized in this Commonwealth, recovery is limited to those cases in which competent medical evidence of emotional distress is presented by the claimant.  It is also supported by Hackney v. Woodring, 652 A.2d 291 (1994).  Because we have determined that Gray was not entitled to recover for IIED based on the lack of medical evidence presented at trial, we need not address the remainder of Appellants’ claims.


Donaldson v. Davidson Brothers, Inc., 144 A.3d 93 (Pa. Super. 2016).  This case arises out of a fatal three-way motor vehicle accident.  Donnelly rear-ended Donaldson.  Donaldson was thrust into the opposite lane of oncoming traffic, where she collided head-on with LJF.  LJF settled property damage claim with Davidson, but in the release reserved any claim for loss of contract.  LJF’s contract claim was dismissed by the lower court as violating the economic loss doctrine.  The court said that the economic loss doctrine does not bar the claim since there was undoubtedly and agreeably some property damage.  The economic loss doctrine provides that no cause of action exists for negligence that results solely in economic damages unaccompanied by physical injury or property damage.  It is beyond dispute that some property damage occurred.  However, LJF’s claim was dismissed anyway because they did not say in their pleading what the contract was that was violated, and the claim was not sufficiently explicit.



Article Categories