Gallagher v. PLCB
Citation | 883 A.2d 550,584 Pa. 362 |
Parties | John GALLAGHER v. PENNSYLVANIA LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD, World Transportation, Inc., Envoy Warehouse, Inc. and Trans Freight Systems, Inc. Appeal of Trans Freight Systems, Inc. |
Decision Date | 28 September 2005 |
Court | United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania |
Joel P. Fishbein, Louis Evan Bricklin, Moira Clare Duggan, Philadelphia, for Trans Freight Systems, Inc.
Dean F. Murtagh, Kim R. Plouffe, Philadelphia, for John Gallagher.
Before: CAPPY, C.J., and CASTILLE, NIGRO, NEWMAN, SAYLOR, EAKIN and BAER, JJ.
Appeal was allowed to consider whether a trial court presiding over a civil negligence case erred in refusing to bifurcate trial to avoid exposing jurors to information from which it could be inferred that the plaintiff may have received some compensation for his injuries from a collateral source.
In November of 1999, while working as an inventory picker in a warehouse operated by the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board (the "PLCB"), Appellee, John Gallagher, fell through an opening in an elevated walkway. He later commenced a negligence action against the PLCB; World Transportation, Inc., a logistical company that provided distribution and warehousing support to the PLCB; Appellant, Trans Freight Systems, Inc., which was also involved in the warehouse operations and which was World Transportation's parent corporation; and others. Among other injuries, Appellee claimed to have suffered a disabling brain injury.
World Transportation and Appellant each asserted that it was Appellee's employer, and therefore, was immune from civil suit in the courts of law under the employer-immunity provisions of the Pennsylvania Workers' Compensation Act, 77 P.S. §§ 1-1041, 2501-2626. See 77 P.S. § 481. Appellee made a pre-trial request pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 213(b), styled as a motion in limine, to have the question of which entity was his employer and the remaining trial issues bifurcated and otherwise to prohibit the mention of workers' compensation during the proposed, separate general liability and damages proceedings. Appellant acknowledged that the collateral source rule precludes references to other sources of recovery that are deemed irrelevant at trial, in order to avoid the possibility that an improper inference by jurors of a double recovery on the plaintiff's part might diminish due and proper damages which would otherwise be assessed against the tortfeasor. See, e.g., Lobalzo v. Varoli, 409 Pa. 15, 21, 185 A.2d 557, 561(1962)
. Appellant contended, however, that such collateral source information is admissible for limited purposes where it has specific relevance to a liability issue in a civil case. In this regard, Appellant posited that its payment of workers' compensation premiums on Appellee's behalf tended to show that it was, in fact, Appellee's employer, and thus, not a proper party to the action. The trial court agreed with Appellant's position on this point and denied relief on the motion, but with the proviso that the "parties may mention workers' compensation only to show that premiums were paid on behalf of plaintiff." See Reproduced Record ("R.R."), at 286a; accord R.R., at 291a ( ).
Despite the trial court's ruling, in his opening statement, Appellant's counsel made specific reference to Appellee's receipt of workers' compensation benefits, as follows:
[H]ow will we show you that Trans Freight Systems was in fact the employer under the law of John Gallagher?... Workers compensation benefits. How did Mr. Gallagher receive workers compensation benefits after this incident occurred? Trans Freight Systems paid the workers compensation benefits.
R.R., at 308a-309a. Appellee's counsel did not assert a contemporaneous objection; however, after the jury retired for the day, the trial judge spoke with counsel and criticized the remark of Appellant's counsel as a violation of his ruling, as follows:
See R.R., at 322a-323a.
Prior to the resumption of the trial the next day, Appellee's counsel expressed continuing concern regarding the effect of the opening remarks, and the trial court indicated its own discomfort in light of the recent decision of the Superior Court in Nigra v. Walsh, 797 A.2d 353 (Pa.Super.2002) ( ). For this reason, the court granted Appellee's request to bar any and all references to workers' compensation, including premium payments. See R.R., at 337a-338a ( ). The court subsequently stated to the jurors:
Folks, I forgot to mention before we started. In one of the opening statements yesterday, there was some mention of workers comp benefits. Please disregard that. That has no place in this case and should not in any way be considered by you in your deciding this case.
Nonetheless, the subject of workers' compensation resurfaced during the cross-examination of Appellee's father, who was asked by Appellant's counsel about his son having "had several prior workers' compensation or work related injuries." R.R., at 425a. Appellee's counsel objected and moved for a mistrial in an interchange that proceeded as follows:
R.R., at 428a-429a, 456a-57a; see also R.R., at 425 ( ). The trial court denied the mistrial motion.
Later in the trial, apparently acting sua sponte, the trial court reconsidered its ruling barring the admission of evidence of workers' compensation premium payments made by Appellant. See R.R., at 415a. At this juncture, the court indicated:
R.R., at 455a-456a. The court thus permitted Appellant's former vice president of operations to testify that Appellant had in fact paid the workers' compensation premiums for employees at the PLCB warehouse facility. See R.R., at 571a. On Appellee's request, the trial court instructed the jurors:
Folks, I do want to remind you that you have heard the term workers compensation. That has nothing to do with any damage which may or may not be awarded by you in this case. You are to put that out of your mind. It is being introduced only on the issue of who employed Mr. Gallagher.
After the close of the evidence, World Transportation moved for a directed verdict on the employer-immunity ground. Counsel for Appellant and Appellee ultimately agreed that the trial court had the authority to decide the issue, see R.R., at 626a, and the court ruled that World Transportation was, and Appellant was not, Appellee's employer. See R.R., at 641a-642a.1 The remaining issues were submitted to the jury, which returned a verdict for Appellee in the amount of $150,000, finding that Appellant and the PLCB each bore 40 percent responsibility for the causal negligence, and allocating 20 percent of the responsibility to Appellee.
Appellee filed post-trial motions,2 asserting, inter alia, that the trial court erred in failing to bifurcate adjudication of the employer identification question and the other trial issues, failing to grant...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Walsh v. BASF Corp.
...The appropriate appellate standard of review is typically the one pertaining to the underlying ruling. See Gallagher v. PLCB, 584 Pa. 362, 883 A.2d 550, 559 n.11 (2005). When reviewing a trial court's grant or denial of a Frye motion, an abuse of discretion standard applies. Betz , 44 A.3d ......
-
Betz v. Pneumo Abex LLC
...Generally, the appropriate appellate standard of review is the one pertaining to the underlying ruling. See Gallagher v. PLCB, 584 Pa. 362, 377 n. 11, 883 A.2d 550, 559 n. 11 (2005). In the context of Judge Colville's Frye ruling, therefore, the abuse of discretion standard applies. See Gra......
-
Schmidt v. Boardman Co.
...of the trial court, which is in the best position to evaluate the necessity for such measures." Gallagher v. Pennsylvania Liquor Control Bd., 584 Pa. 362, 883 A.2d 550, 557 (2005). [Bifurcation] should be carefully and cautiously applied and [should] be utilized only in a case and at a junc......
-
Betz v. Pneumo Abex LLC, 38 WAP 2010
...(2003). Generally, the appropriate appellate standard of review is the one pertaining to the underlying ruling. See Gallagher v. PLCB, 584 Pa. 362, 377 n.11, 883 A.2d 550, 559 n.11 (2005). In the context of Judge Colville's Frye ruling, therefore, the abuse of discretion standard applies. S......
-
A review of state law modifying the collateral source rule: seeking greater fairness in economic damages awards.
...797 A.2d 353, 356 (Pa. Supr. 2002). (242) See 40 PA. CONS. STAT. [section] 1303.508 (2008); Gallagher v. Pennsylvania Liquor Control Bd., 883 A.2d 550, 554 (Pa. (243) [section] 1303.508. (244) Id. (245) [section] 1303.508(d). (246) Moorhead, Adm'x of the Estate of Catherine B. Baxter, Dec'd......