Philadelphia, Pa. (October 24, 2025) - Philadelphia Partners David Yavil and Alex MacMullan recently obtained summary judgment for their clients on multiple claims in an auto accident lawsuit, significantly narrowing the issues for trial.
This transportation matter arose out of a rear-end accident at night on northbound I-81 in Pennsylvania. The plaintiffs brought claims against the defendants/insureds, a commercial trucking company, the truck owner, and a subcontractor-driver for negligence, negligent hiring/training/supervision, loss of consortium and punitive damages.
The defendants moved for partial summary judgment to dismiss the claims for punitive damages, negligent hiring/training/supervision and loss of consortium. A non-party witness testified that he witnessed defendants' commercial vehicle speeding "10 to 15 seconds" before the accident. ELD data obtained by defendants in discovery did not log any incidents of speeding in the minutes leading up to and during the accident. However, ELD data from early in the night as well as for months prior demonstrated numerous times the driver was speeding.
The defendants argued that, absent seeing the accident, and in light of the ELD data, a reasonable inference of speeding in favor of the plaintiffs so as to support a claim for punitive damages could not be drawn in light of the fact that: (1) the non-party witness did not witness the accident; (2) the plaintiffs did not dispute the accuracy of the ELD data at other times it was recorded, and in fact, relied upon it to establish past instances of driver speeding for purposes of their negligent hiring/training/supervision claim. The court granted summary judgment and dismissed the punitive damages claim, finding that there was no nexus between prior occasions the driver was speeding and the collision at issue.
Further, negligent hiring/training/supervision was dismissed as subsumed byrespondeat superiorliability, and in light of the dismissal of the punitive damages claim. Additionally, plaintiffs' loss of consortium claim was dismissed as time-barred, rejecting plaintiffs' argument that the discovery rule saved the claim.
The dismissals significantly narrow the issues for trial.