DON’T TALK AND DRIVE: Accidents Caused By A Driver Using A Cell Phone May Give Rise To An Award Of Punitive Damages

By: Mary Ellen F. Pina, Esq.

In a recent Opinion and Order, Judge Gregory H. Chelak of the Pike County Court of Common Pleas addressed the issue of whether a plaintiff may pursue a claim for punitive damages on the basis that the defendant’s use of a cell phone distracted him or her to the point of causing a car accident.

Linehan v. Jaludi, No. 1865-2008-Civil (Pike Co. Jan. 14, 2010), involves a police officer who was seriously injured when his cruiser, which he had pulled off to the side of the roadway with all of the flashing lights activated, was hit by a vehicle being driven by the defendant, Amanda Jaludi. Ms. Jaludi, who was talking on her cell phone while operating her vehicle, drove off the roadway and collided with the plaintiff’s cruiser. The accident occurred in the early afternoon on a section of the roadway which was designated as a Special School Zone, with a speed limit of 15 miles per hour.

Officer Linehan and his wife filed an action against Ms. Jaludi asserting claims for negligence, loss of consortium and uninsured/underinsured motorist benefits and they requested an award of punitive damages. The plaintiffs alleged that the fact that Ms. Jaludi was so distracted by her cell phone conversation that she crashed into Officer Linehan’s cruiser, despite the cruiser’s being pulled off the roadway with all of its flashing lights activated, provided a sufficient basis for their punitive damages claim. Defense counsel filed preliminary objections to the Complaint, arguing that Ms. Jaludi’s use of a cell phone at the time of the accident was an insufficient basis for an award of punitive damages.

The Linehan Court sustained the defendant’s preliminary objections and granted the motion to strike the claim for punitive damages. In support of this ruling, Judge Chelak concluded that the unsupported allegation in the Complaint that Ms. Jaludi was so distracted by the use of her cell phone that she crashed into the cruiser was insufficient, in and of itself, to allow the punitive damages claim to proceed. Notably, Plaintiffs had no evidence, such as the relevant cell phone records, to establish that the defendant was, in fact, using her cell phone at the time of the accident or that the manner in which she was using the phone contributed to the accident.

However, relying upon Pennington v. King, slip copy, 2009 WL 425718, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12779 at 21 (E.D. Pa. 2009, Pratter, J.), Judge Chelak opined that if the information amassed during discovery supports the conclusion that Ms. Jaludi’s use of her cell phone did, in fact, affect her driving at the time of the accident, Plaintiffs could seek to amend their Complaint and attempt to restate the punitive damages claim. Specifically, His Honor stated as follows: "If, after discovery has been conducted, Plaintiffs are able to present evidence of Jaludi’s cellular phone use and attendant distraction and reckless driving at the time of the accident, they have the right to seek to amend their requested relief pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1033." Linehan v. Jaludi, No. 1865-2008-Civil (Pike Co. Jan. 14, 2010).

There is ample data of the adverse effects that talking on a cell phone and/or texting has on a driver’s reaction time and overall driving capability. Unfortunately, that information alone has not deterred drivers from talking and texting while behind the wheel. Maybe, just maybe, the potential of the imposition of a punitive damages award in the event of an accident that occurs while talking or texting will make drivers think before pulling out their cell phone next time they are behind the wheel.