Lee v. Wakeman, Case No. 1:19-cv-0055-SPB-RAL
| Decision Date | 10 June 2021 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 1:19-cv-0055-SPB-RAL |
| Parties | PATRICK LEE, Plaintiff v. MURRAY WAKEMAN and, EURO LINK LOGISTIC, Defendants & Third Party Plaintiffs, v. TRIPLE D SUPPLY, LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY and FRANKLIN M. DAVILLA, Third Party Defendants |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania |
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ON DEFENDANTS DAVILLA AND TRIPLE D SUPPLY, LLC'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
This personal injury action arises out of an accident involving three commercial tractor trailers traveling one behind the other on Interstate 90 in Erie County, Pennsylvania. Plaintiff Patrick Lee, the driver of the second vehicle in the line, asserts negligence claims against Defendant Murray Wakeman, the operator of the truck that collided with the rear of his truck, as well as against Defendant/Third-Party Defendant Frank DaVilla, the driver of the lead truck, who suddenly decelerated or stopped in the highway. Lee also asserts claims against the employer of each driver based on theories of respondeat superior and negligent entrustment.
DaVilla and his employer, Triple D Supply, LLC, have filed a motion for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, arguing that the record does not support liability against either of them and that the Court should find Wakeman negligent as a matter of law. Because genuine issues of material fact remain regarding each of these assertions, the Court the Court must deny the motion.
Lee commenced this action against Wakeman and his employer, Euro Link Logistic, in the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County, Pennsylvania (Civil Action No. 2019-10429). Wakeman and Euro Link Logistic filed a timely notice of removal of the action to this Court based on diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. ECF No. 1-1, p. 4. Wakeman and Euro Link Logistic later filed a third-party complaint for contribution and indemnity against DaVilla and Triple D based on allegations that DaVilla's "sudden, unexpected and abrupt application of his brakes" was unreasonable and contributed to the accident. ECF No. 45, ¶¶ 12, 13. Thereafter, Lee filed his First Amended Complaint, which asserted direct liability against DaVilla and Triple D. ECF Nos. 50, 52, 53. Arch Insurance Company later intervened as a plaintiff based upon its worker's compensation lien and subrogation interest. ECF Nos. 71, 77.
DaVilla and Triple D filed the pending motion for summary judgment with supporting documents on November 30, 2020. ECF Nos. 89-91. Euro Link Logistic and Wakeman have responded to the motion, ECF Nos. 93-95, as has Lee, ECF Nos. 97-100, 102, joined by Arch Insurance. ECF No. 101. DaVilla and Triple D filed a reply brief. ECF No. 103. Lee submitted a sur-reply. ECF No. 108. The Court conducted oral argument on the motion on May 25, 2021. ECF No. 110. The motion is ripe for disposition.
The following factual assertions are taken from the parties' respective concise statements of material fact and the exhibits thereto. Disputed facts and conflicting deposition testimony are noted.
The accident giving rise to this case occurred on February 12, 2018, at approximately 1:42 p.m. Immediately prior to the accident, DaVilla, Lee, and Wakeman were driving their respective commercial tractor trailers in the right lane of the eastbound lanes of Interstate 90 in Erie County, Pennsylvania. DaVilla's vehicle was in the lead position, followed by Lee's truck. Wakeman's vehicle was following behind Lee. This area of Interstate 90 is a four-lane highway with east and westbound lanes separated by a grassy median. After the accident, Pennsylvania State Trooper Jarrett Hryniszak arrived on the scene and took witness statements from each driver, a non-party witness Kimberly Snyder, and another witness which he included in his police report.
DaVilla testified at his deposition that his truck was traveling on cruise control at an approximate speed of fifty-seven miles per hour when he observed a dog in the median of the highway, about 100 feet ahead of him. He further testified that he reacted to the presence of the dog by tapping his brakes to turn off the cruise control, engaging his four-way flashers, and beginning to slow down. He asserted that he continued to watch the dog until he saw it jump over the guardrail. According to DaVilla, a person later identified as Kimberly Snyder was following "right behind" the dog. In response to this development, DaVilla locked up his rear brakes and caused his truck to enter a "straight skid, controlled skid for a short time." DaVilla then let off his brakes to release the skid. As he did so, a car operated by a nonparty was traveling next to him in the left/passing lane. According to DaVilla, he had slowed his vehicle to approximately thirty tothirty-five miles per hour when Lee's truck struck his truck from behind. Following this "first impact," he brought his vehicle to a compete stop. As DaVilla prepared to get out of his truck, he felt a second impact to the rear of his truck caused by Wakeman's truck colliding with Lee's truck and pushing or propelling it into the rear of his vehicle a second time. DaVilla's statement to Trooper Hryniszak on the day of the accident was materially consistent with his deposition testimony.
Lee testified that his truck was approximately one-quarter mile behind DaVilla's vehicle and traveling at approximately sixty-two to sixty-five miles per hour when he observed DaVilla's "brake lights come on." Lee did not see what caused DaVilla to hit his brakes, but he did observe "the back of his trailer started jumping," which indicated to Lee that DaVilla was either "hard braking, or he has an empty trailer and he's applying his brakes." This prompted Lee to downshift to slow his truck and ultimately bring it to a complete stop approximately six feet behind DaVilla's vehicle. Thus, contrary to DaVilla's testimony, Lee asserts that he did not collide with the rear of DaVilla's truck. In other words, he disputes the "first impact" described by DaVilla. According to Lee, approximately thirty seconds after he had stopped his truck behind DaVilla's vehicle, he observed Wakeman's truck in his mirror approaching at a high rate of speed. Wakeman's truck collided with the back of Lee's trailer, pushing the cab of Lee's truck into the rear of DaVilla's trailer. The statement Lee provided to Hryniszak on the day of the accident was consistent with his deposition testimony, except that Lee told Hryniszak that he observed a woman in the median prior to the impact.
Wakeman testified that he had been following Lee's truck for approximately half an hour before the accident. During that time, he had attempted to pass Lee once or twice. As he again approached the rear of Lee's vehicle, he moved into the left lane to pass Lee. As the nose of Wakeman's tractor approached the front of Lee's trailer, he saw another truck in front of Lee and decided to slow down and return to the right lane. Wakeman checked his mirror to see whether it was clear and started moving into the right lane, at which point he believes he saw something in his peripheral vision. When he again looked ahead, he observed Lee's truck stopped in the highway. Wakeman estimates that his truck was within forty feet (or a half-truck length) of Lee's truck when he looked ahead and saw it. Three seconds or less later, his truck collided with the rear of Lee's trailer at a speed of approximately sixty-three miles per hour. Wakeman said it looked and felt like Lee was stopped when he hit him. Trooper Hryniszak issued Wakeman a citation for violating Section 3310(b) of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Code. ECF No. 90-1, p. 4; ECF No. 90-1, p. 37:2-24.1
Kimberly Snyder witnessed the accident. She was driving west on I-90 when she saw a dog and pulled her car over to the right westbound shoulder. She existed her vehicle and then saw the dog run across the median and get hit by a semi-truck. She witnessed the accident at issue shortly thereafter while she was standing behind her car on the shoulder. She could not tell which vehiclescollided or in what order. Afterwards, she walked down the shoulder of the westbound lanes along the median to see what had happened. She testified, however, that she never entered the grassy area of the median. Her deposition is mostly consistent with the information she reported to Hyrniszak as related in his report of her telephone interview the day after the accident, but Hyrniszak's report does record that she told him that she went into the median area to observe the scene after the crash.
As the foregoing summaries reflect, conflicts exist among the versions of the accidents related by the three drivers and Ms. Snyder. The conflicts include whether the dog alone approached or entered the eastbound lanes of I-90 or whether Snyder followed closely behind the dog, indicting a risk that she too might enter the eastbound lanes. Snyder testified that she never even entered the grassy median, let alone crossed the median and approached the eastbound lanes. In contrast, DaVilla testified that when the dog jumped the guardrail and entered the eastbound lanes, Snyder was "right behind" it.
Conflicting testimony also exists regarding the crash itself. For example, Lee and DaVilla disagree regarding the first impact. Lee testified that he had completely stopped his truck approximately six feet behind DaVilla's fully stopped truck when Wakeman rear-ended his truck and pushed it into DaVilla's truck. In contrast, DaVilla testified that Lee initially collided with him while he was slowing down but still moving at a speed of 30 to 35 miles per hour. DaVilla said that shortly after...
To continue reading
Request your trial