When dealing with claims against an employer and employee, "vicarious imposition of punitive damages are not to be judged under a higher standard that the already high standard of conduct reserved for direct punitive damages claims." Gregory v. Sewell, 2006 WL 2707405 (M.D. Pa., Sept. 19, 2006). --------
(Doc. 100 at 16.) Plaintiffs contend Defendants' motion for summary judgment on punitive damages should be denied because, under these facts, there exists genuine issues of material fact as to whether or not a tractor trailer driver was acting with reckless disregard by speeding under these conditions. (Doc. 100 at 21 ( citing Gregory v. Sewell, 2006 WL 2707405 (M.D.Pa. 2006) (The defendant's motion for summary judgment as to the plaintiffs' punitive damages claims denied where genuine issue of material fact as to whether or not the driver was speeding and driving too fast for the icy conditions)).)
Achey v. Crete Carrier Corp., Civ. A. No. 07-CV-3592, 2009 Wl 9083282, at *4 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 20,2009); Gregory v. Sewell, Civ. A. Nos. 4:04-CV-2438, 4:04-CV-2439,4:-4-CV-2440, 2006 WL 2707405, at *11 n.5 (M.D. Pa. Sept. 19, 2006). As noted in Sewell, “[i]t is obvious that a defendant cannot consciously appreciate the risk of harm in a situation at which it is not present and of whose risky conditions it is not immediately aware.” Id.
(ECF No. 11 at 5 (citing Restatement (Second) of Torts § 500 (1965))). In further support, Plaintiffs argue that the courts have found allegations of recklessness to be proper when a driver was speeding in adverse weather or driving carelessly in dangerous road conditions, citing Sabo v. Suarez, Civ. A. No. 3:CV-08-1889, 2009 WL 2365969, at *3 (M.D. Pa. July 31, 2009) and Gregory v. Sewell, Nos. 4:CV-04-2438, 4:CV-04-2439; 4:CV-04-2440, 2006 WL 2707405, at *12 (M.D. Pa. Sept. 19, 2006). (ECF No. 11 at 5).