Opinion
J-A28014-18 No. 572 MDA 2018
03-07-2019
JOHN AND DEBRA HOAGLAND v. JODY HOFFMASTER AND COUNTY LINE QUARRY, INC. APPEAL OF: JOHN HOAGLAND
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Judgment Entered March 29, 2018
In the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County Civil Division at No(s): CI-14-01373 BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., OLSON, J., and MUSMANNO, J. MEMORANDUM BY OLSON, J.:
Appellant, John Hoagland, appeals from the judgment entered on March 29, 2018. We affirm.
The trial court ably summarized the underlying facts and procedural posture of this case. As the trial court explained:
This case arises out of a motor vehicle accident which occurred on April 20, 2011, at the Prospect Road exit off Route 30 West in West Hempfield Township, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania. At approximately 2:20 p.m., a [tri-axle dump truck, owned by Country Line Quarry, Inc. (hereinafter "Defendant CLQ") and driven by Defendant CLQ's employee, Jody Hoffmaster (hereinafter "Defendant Hoffmaster")], failed to completely stop before colliding with [Appellant's] vehicle[,] which was sitting at a red light at the end of the ramp. While the exact speed of the truck was never determined, there were four large skid marks indicating that there was an attempt to stop the vehicle prior to the collision. . . .
Upon [arriving at] the scene, police took [Defendant] Hoffmaster into custody on suspicion of driving while intoxicated. Further testing revealed [that Defendant Hoffmaster had a] blood alcohol level of .292%. [Defendant] Hoffmaster acknowledged drinking [alcohol] and explained that he began [to do so] only after he left [Defendant] CLQ's premises. He was charged with, and subsequently pled guilty to, driving under the influence, highest rate of alcohol, and careless driving. The day after the accident [Defendant] Hoffmaster was fired by [Defendant] CLQ pursuant to their zero-tolerance drug and alcohol policy.
[fn.1. 75 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 3802(c) and 3714, respectively.]
On April 30, 2013, [Appellant] filed a Lancaster County suit against [Defendant Hoffmaster and Defendant CLQ (hereinafter, collectively, Defendants)]. Without explanation, [Appellant] withdrew that case and refiled in Philadelphia County against [Defendant] Hoffmaster, [Defendant] CLQ, and six other defendants. After two sets of preliminary objections, three complaints and ten months of litigation, [Appellant] voluntarily dismissed the six new defendants and[,] on February 21, 2014, the action against [Defendants] was transferred back to Lancaster County. In a second amended complaint, [Appellant] asserted a direct punitive damage claim against [Defendant] CLQ to which Defendant CLQ filed preliminary objections. On July 8, 2014, [the trial court] sustained the preliminary objections without prejudice and with the understanding that the [punitive damages] claim [against Defendant CLQ] could be reasserted should [Appellant] be able to produce any evidence that [Defendant] Hoffmaster was drinking at any time before he left [Defendant] CLQ's premises on the day of the accident. After over three years of discovery and investigation consisting of numerous interrogatories, depositions, and expert reports, and five days of trial[, Appellant] was not able to produce a scintilla of evidence to rebut [Defendant] Hoffmaster's consistent statements that he began drinking only after he left CLQ's premises. Without that evidence[, the trial court] was constrained to find that a punitive damage claim was not appropriate [against Defendant CLQ] in this case.
Apparently recognizing this flaw shortly before trial, [Appellant] tried a new theory[,] arguing that punitive damages were warranted because [Defendant] CLQ violated its employment policies on employee retention. In so claiming, [Appellant] relied heavily on the last-minute deposition of [Defendant] CLQ's Safety Director, Anthony Mangabat, who testified that he would have fired [Defendant Hoffmaster] in 2009 for three safety violations if he had had the authority to do so. Plaintiff also retained a "trucking expert" to claim that [Defendant] CLQ violated Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration Regulations by not providing a sixty-minute reasonable suspicion training to supervisors. [The trial court] found these last-minute allegations to be wholly insufficient to support a claim for punitive damages under the facts of this case and denied [Appellant's] motion . . . without prejudice, again with the understanding that [the trial court] would entertain an oral motion to amend should any evidence that [Defendant] Hoffmaster began to consume alcohol at any time prior to leaving [Defendant CLQ's] premises on the day of the accident emerge.
[fn.2.] The first violation occurred on March 18, 2009 as a result of [Defendant] Hoffmaster backing his truck into a tool box. The second violation occurred on June 18, 2009 after [Defendant] Hoffmaster operated his vehicle without functioning brake lights. He received a five-day suspension and returned to work. The third incident occurred on October 30, 2009[, when Defendant] Hoffmaster rear ended another vehicle after the other vehicle abruptly stopped mid turn in a four-way intersection. After each of these incidents [Defendant Hoffmaster] was tested for drugs and alcohol pursuant to company policy. The tests were negative, although the second test could not be produced at trial. While there was some discussion as to whether [Defendant Hoffmaster] should [have been] fired after the third violation, [Defendant] CLQ ultimately made the decision to retain [Defendant] Hoffmaster over Mr. Mangabat's suggestion that [Defendant Hoffmaster] be fired[,] and [Defendant Hoffmaster] continued to drive for [Defendant CLQ] after serving the five-day suspension.
The only testimony presented at trial relevant to the time at which [Defendant] Hoffmaster began to drink came from
Nelson Klinedinst, [Defendant] CLQ's Dispatcher and Weight Master, and [Defendant] Hoffmaster himself. Mr. Klinedinst was the only one to see [Defendant] Hoffmaster on the day of the accident. On that day, [Defendant] Hoffmaster picked up three separate loads of stone for delivery to [Defendant CLQ's] customers. Mr. Klinedinst explained that [Defendant] Hoffmaster appeared normal during each of the three interactions he had with him. He testified that during all three interactions [Defendant] Hoffmaster acted in his usual manner, his eyes were not bloodshot and glassy and [Mr. Klinedinst] did not detect an odor of alcohol on [Defendant Hoffmaster's] person.Trial Court Opinion, 6/29/18, at 1-5 (internal citations and emphasis and some internal capitalization and footnotes omitted).
Most telling of all was the testimony of [Defendant] Hoffmaster himself, who, as he had consistently and without exception in the six-and-a-half years since the accident, explained he only began drinking after he picked up the third load and left [Defendant CLQ's premises]. [Defendant] Hoffmaster testified that after receiving the third load of stone, he pulled his vehicle into the company parking lot, stepped out of the dump truck, and retrieved a bottle of rum from his personal vehicle. He was adamant that he began drinking from this bottle only after he left [Defendant] CLQ's property and continued to do so until the accident. Nonetheless, and without presenting any counter-factual evidence regarding when [Defendant] Hoffmaster began to drink, [Appellant] made an oral motion to reinstate the direct punitive damage claim [against Defendant CLQ,] which [the trial court] once again denied.
After five days of trial, on October 20, 2017, the jury awarded [Appellant] compensatory damages in the amount of $210,000 against both Defendants jointly and an award of $30,000 in punitive damages against [Defendant] Hoffmaster. The jury apportioned 75% liability to [Defendant] Hoffmaster and 25% liability to [Defendant] CLQ. On October 27, 2017, [Appellant] filed a post-trial motion with th[e trial] court for a new trial solely on the issue of punitive damages. Defendant CLQ and Defendant Hoffmaster filed timely responses to the motion and after oral argument on the motion [the trial court] denied [Appellant's] motion on March 12, 2018.
On March 29, 2018, judgment was entered on the verdict. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal and now raises the following claims to this Court:
A. Whether the trial [court] erred in refusing to instruct the jury that it could consider awarding punitive damages against Defendant CLQ.
1. Whether the evidence would have supported a finding by the jury that punitive damages against CLQ were warranted based on the CLQ's own conduct because CLQ's corporate designee/safety manager testified that Hoffmaster should have been fired due to three prior incidents, and was a "safety risk," but Hoffmaster was permitted to remain employed at CLQ because CLQ needed truck drivers more than it cared about safety.
2. Whether CLQ's admissions that it was required but failed to comply with the Federal Motor Vehicle Carrier Safety Regulations including section Sections 382.603 and 382.307, and CLQ's failure to train supervisors to determine reasonable suspicion of alcohol use supported punitive damages against CLQ.
3. Whether the testimony of Plaintiff's expert witness relating to CLQ's violations of federal regulations and its own policies supported punitive damages against CLQ.
4. Whether the trial court erred in restricting [Appellant's] ability to pursue punitive damages against CLQ to producing evidence that Defendant Hoffmaster was drinking on or before he left CLQ's premises on the day of the accident.
5. Whether the evidence would have supported a finding by the jury that CLQ was vicariously liable for punitive damages based on the conduct of its employee, Defendant Hoffmaster.
B. Whether the trial court erred in entering the order dated July 8, 2014, sustaining preliminary objections to [Appellant's] claim for punitive damages as to Defendant CLQ, and the orders of June 1, 2017 and October 6, 2017, refusing to reinstate that claim.Appellant's Brief at 6-8 (some internal capitalization omitted).
C. Whether the trial court erred granting in part Defendant's motion for protective order dated July 12, 2017, limiting [Appellant's] discovery and preventing him from deposing CLQ's owner at an earlier stage.
D. Whether the trial court erred in refusing to allow [Appellant] to subpoena CLQ's owner, Tony Depaul, to testify at trial as to why Mr. Hoffmaster was not terminated prior to the accident date.
E. Whether a new trial should be limited to punitive damages against CLQ when a new trial on all issues has not been requested by any party and would be prejudicial to all parties.
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the relevant law, the certified record, the notes of testimony, and the opinion of the able trial court judge, the Honorable Jeffery D. Wright. We conclude that Appellant is not entitled to relief in this case and that Judge Wright's June 29, 2018 opinion meticulously and accurately disposes of Appellant's issues on appeal. Therefore, we affirm on the basis of Judge Wright's thorough opinion and adopt it as our own. In any future filing with this or any other court addressing this ruling, the filing party shall attach a copy of Judge Wright's June 29, 2018 opinion.
Judgment affirmed. Jurisdiction relinquished. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 03/07/2019
Image materials not available for display.