Valentino v. Phila. Triathlon, LLC
Decision Date | 15 November 2016 |
Docket Number | No. 3049 EDA 2013,3049 EDA 2013 |
Parties | Michele VALENTINO, as Administratrix of the Estate of Derek Valentino, Deceased, and Michele Valentino, in her own right, Appellant v. PHILADELPHIA TRIATHLON, LLC, Appellee |
Court | Pennsylvania Superior Court |
Craig A. Falcone, Media, for appellant.
Heather M. Eichenbaum, Philadelphia, for appellee.
Appellant, Michele Valentino (in her own right and as administratrix of the estate of Derek Valentino), appeals from an order entered on September 30, 2013 in the Civil Division of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County granting summary judgment on behalf of Philadelphia Triathlon, LLC (Appellee). After careful consideration, we affirm.
In 2010, Appellee organized an event known as the Philadelphia Insurance Triathlon Sprint (the Triathlon). Three events comprised the Triathlon: a one-half mile swim, a 15.7 mile bicycle race, and a three and one-tenth mile run. Trial Court Opinion, 8/14/14, at 2. The swimming portion of the competition occurred in the Schuylkill River in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
To compete in the Triathlon, each participant was required to register for the event. As part of the registration process, participants paid a fee and electronically executed a liability waiver form.1 Each participant also completed and submitted a registration form to obtain a number and a bib to wear on the day of the race. Mr. Valentino electronically registered as a participant in the Triathlon on January 24, 2010.
On June 26, 2010, at approximately 8:30 a.m., Mr. Valentino entered the Schuylkill River to begin the first part of the Triathlon. He never completed the swimming portion of the competition or any other part of the race. The following day, on June 27, 2010, divers retrieved his body from the Schuylkill River.
Appellant (Mr. Valentino's widow) filed her original complaint on April 12, 2012, asserting wrongful death and survival claims against various defendants, including Appellee. Thereafter, she amended her complaint on June 22, 2012. All of the defendants filed preliminary objections on June 22, 2012. On July 27, 2012, the trial court sustained the defendants' preliminary objections and struck all references in Appellant's amended complaint that referred to outrageous acts, gross negligence, recklessness, and punitive damages. The court concluded that these allegations were legally insufficient since the alleged facts showed only ordinary negligence. In addition, the court struck paragraphs 22(a), (c), (e), and (m) in the amended complaint on grounds that those averments lacked sufficient specificity. The defendants answered the amended complaint and raised new matter on August 9, 2012.
Shortly after discovery commenced, the defendants moved for summary judgment in December 2012. The trial court denied that motion on January 29, 2013. Eventually, Appellant stipulated to the dismissal of all defendants except Appellee. At the completion of discovery, Appellee again moved for summary judgment on August 5, 2013. The trial court granted Appellee's motion on September 30, 2013.2 Appellant sought reconsideration but the trial court denied her request. Appellant then filed a timely notice of appeal on October 23, 2013. Pursuant to an order of court, Appellant filed a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal in accordance with Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). Subsequently, the trial court explained its reasons for sustaining Appellee's preliminary objections in an opinion issued on March 18, 2014. In a separate opinion issued on August 14, 2014, the trial court set forth its rationale for granting Appellee's motion for summary judgment.3
On December 30, 2015, a divided three-judge panel of this Court affirmed, in part, and reversed, in part, the rulings issued by the trial court. Specifically, the panel unanimously affirmed the trial court's order sustaining Appellee's preliminary objections. In addition, the panel unanimously agreed that: (1) the completion of discovery and the further development of the factual record defeated application of the coordinate jurisdiction rule and eliminated factual issues surrounding Mr. Valentino's execution of the liability waiver; (2) Appellant's failure to state viable claims involving recklessness, outrageousness, and intentional misconduct on the part of Appellee mooted Appellant's argument that a contractual waiver of such claims would be ineffective; and, (3) there was no basis to consider the sufficiency of the testimony of Appellant's expert since the trial court did not address that issue. Citing Pisano , however, two of the three members of the petite panel concluded that the liability waiver executed by Mr. Valentino did not apply to Appellant because she was not a signatory to the agreement.4 Consequently, this Court vacated summary judgment in favor of Appellee as to Appellant's wrongful death claims.5 Thereafter, both Appellant and Appellee requested reargument en banc . By order filed on March 11, 2016, this Court granted en banc reargument and withdrew our opinions of December 30, 2015. We now address the following questions:
Appellant's Substituted Brief at 7–8.
In the first issue, Appellant asserts that the trial court erred in sustaining the preliminary objections and striking all references to outrageous acts, gross negligence, and reckless conduct. Appellant also asserts that the trial court erred in dismissing her claims for punitive damages. The basis for these contentions is that, when the allegations set forth in the amended complaint are taken as true, the pleading asserts a claim that, "[Appellee] intentionally created a situation where swimmers [went] into a river with inadequate supervision and no reasonable means of rescue if they got into trouble." Appellant's Substituted Brief at 22 (emphasis in original).
The standard of review we apply when considering a trial court's order sustaining preliminary objections is well settled:
HRANEC Sheet Metal, Inc. v. Metalico Pittsburgh, Inc. , 107 A.3d 114, 118 (Pa. Super. 2014).
In Pennsylvania, "[p]unitive damages may be awarded for conduct that is outrageous, because of the defendant's evil motive or his reckless indifference to the rights of others." Hutchison v. Luddy , 582 Pa. 114, 870 A.2d 766, 770 (2005), quoting , Feld v. Merriam , 506 Pa. 383, 485 A.2d 742, 747 (1984). "As the name suggests, punitive damages are penal in nature and are proper only in cases where the defendant's actions are so outrageous as to demonstrate willful, wanton or reckless conduct." Hutchison , 870 A.2d at 770. To support a claim for punitive damages, the plaintiff must show that the defendant had a subjective appreciation of the risk of harm to which the plaintiff was exposed and that the defendant acted, or failed to act, in conscious disregard of that risk. Id . at 772. "Ordinary negligence, involving inadvertence, mistake or error of judgment will not support an award of punitive damages." Hutchinson v. Penske Truck Leasing Co. , 876 A.2d 978, 983–984 (Pa. Super. 2005), aff'd , 592 Pa. 38, 922 A.2d 890 (2007).
Appellant's amended complaint alleges that Mr. Valentino died while swimming in the Schuylkill River during the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Valentino v. Phila. Triathlon, LLC
...Superior Court affirmed the trial court's order granting Triathlon summary judgment in a published decision. Valentino v. Phila. Triathlon, LLC , 150 A.3d 483 (Pa. Super. 2016). Preliminarily, the Superior Court acknowledged that because a wrongful death claim is not derivative of a deceden......
-
Soberay v. Greyhound Lines Inc.
...allowing the plaintiff to introduce evidence of internal company rules. Greyhound relied on Valentino v. Philadelphia Triathlon, L.L.C. , 150 A.3d 483 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2016), to support its claim that the court erred in awarding punitive damages. In Valentino , the court struck the plaintiff......
-
Simmons v. Simpson House, Inc., CIVIL ACTION No. 15–06636
...id. at 663, because they possessed a "separate and distinct" cause of action. Id. at 656 ; see also Valentino v. Phila. Triathlon, LLC , 150 A.3d 483, 492 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2016) ; see id. at 494 ("Thus, to enforce an arbitration clause in the wrongful death context, the claimant's signature ......
-
Monroe v. CBH20, LP
...... See Valentino v. Philadelphia Triathlon, LLC , 150 A.3d 483, 489 (Pa. Super. 2016) ( en banc ), aff'd by ... See generally [ ] Sullivan v. City of Phila. [314 Pa.Super. 381], 460 A.2d 1191, 1192 (Pa. Super. 1983) (citing Pa.R.C[iv].P. 1033)); see [ ......