Court: Car Accident Injuries Too Minor for Negligence Claim
A man who suffered a bone bruise in a car accident nine years ago has failed to convince the Pennsylvania Superior Court that his injury was serious enough to maintain a negligence claim.
November 09, 2017 at 11:47 AM
7 minute read
A man who suffered a bone bruise in a car accident nine years ago has failed to convince the Pennsylvania Superior Court that his injury was serious enough to maintain a negligence claim.
A unanimous three-judge panel issued a memorandum Nov. 3 in Kitchen v. Kruman, finding that Christian Kitchen, who was 12 at the time of the accident, failed to show that his injury had an effect on him significant enough to overcome the limited tort threshold of his parents' insurance policy.
Kitchen's personal injury action stemmed from a June 2008 accident in which a vehicle driven by his mother collided with one driven by Jerome Kruman, leaving Kitchen with knee pain that he testified caused him to stop or take breaks while playing sports. The injury did not, however, keep him from meeting physical activity requirements to be a member of the U.S. Navy Reserve, he testified, and he has not received medical treatment for the knee since 2011, Senior Judge James J. Fitzgerald III wrote for the court.
The trial court granted Kruman's motion for summary judgment asserting that Kitchen was bound by the limited tort policy.
On appeal, Kitchen argued that a jury should be allowed to decide whether his injuries constituted a serious impairment of his bodily function. He relied primarily on the Superior Court's 2013 ruling in Cadena v. Latch and the same court's 1999 ruling in Kelly v. Ziolko to support his argument, Fitzgerald said. In Cadena, the court noted that an impairment “'need not be permanent to be serious.'”
Kitchen argued that he suffered serious injuries that affected his ability to walk, play sports, help with household chores and more, despite the fact that the trial court determined his impairment to be de minimis. He wore a knee brace following the injury, but stopped wearing it once he grew out of it, Fitzgerald noted.
The trial court determined that the injury had “'little to no impact on his normal daily activities,'” and that he continued to maintain a “'very active lifestyle'” and participate in numerous sports after the accident, pointing to a 2016 independent medical examination that contradicted Kitchen's arguments regarding the severity of the injury. Fitzgerald agreed and offered his own additional observations.
For one thing, Fitzgerald said, the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require an appellant to identify an issue of fact arising from evidence in the record controverting the evidence used to support the summary judgment motion. But Kitchen “totally failed” to controvert the independent medical examination, which said he remained extremely active after the accident and the residual pain was attributable to his activity level. Because his pain is “the product of his own lifestyle,” his case is distinguishable from Cadena and Kelly, Fitzgerald said.
Additionally, the plaintiffs in those cases had their day-to-day lives “seriously impaired” and Kitchen's impact was minimal in comparison, “far from enough to classify it as serious impairment of bodily function,” Fitzgerald said.
Steven Wolfe, who represented Kitchen, said he did not believe the Superior Court's decision was correct. Anthony Zabicki, who represented Kruman, did not return a call for comment.
A man who suffered a bone bruise in a car accident nine years ago has failed to convince the Pennsylvania Superior Court that his injury was serious enough to maintain a negligence claim.
A unanimous three-judge panel issued a memorandum Nov. 3 in Kitchen v. Kruman, finding that Christian Kitchen, who was 12 at the time of the accident, failed to show that his injury had an effect on him significant enough to overcome the limited tort threshold of his parents' insurance policy.
Kitchen's personal injury action stemmed from a June 2008 accident in which a vehicle driven by his mother collided with one driven by Jerome Kruman, leaving Kitchen with knee pain that he testified caused him to stop or take breaks while playing sports. The injury did not, however, keep him from meeting physical activity requirements to be a member of the U.S. Navy Reserve, he testified, and he has not received medical treatment for the knee since 2011, Senior Judge James J. Fitzgerald III wrote for the court.
The trial court granted Kruman's motion for summary judgment asserting that Kitchen was bound by the limited tort policy.
On appeal, Kitchen argued that a jury should be allowed to decide whether his injuries constituted a serious impairment of his bodily function. He relied primarily on the Superior Court's 2013 ruling in Cadena v. Latch and the same court's 1999 ruling in Kelly v. Ziolko to support his argument, Fitzgerald said. In Cadena, the court noted that an impairment “'need not be permanent to be serious.'”
Kitchen argued that he suffered serious injuries that affected his ability to walk, play sports, help with household chores and more, despite the fact that the trial court determined his impairment to be de minimis. He wore a knee brace following the injury, but stopped wearing it once he grew out of it, Fitzgerald noted.
The trial court determined that the injury had “'little to no impact on his normal daily activities,'” and that he continued to maintain a “'very active lifestyle'” and participate in numerous sports after the accident, pointing to a 2016 independent medical examination that contradicted Kitchen's arguments regarding the severity of the injury. Fitzgerald agreed and offered his own additional observations.
For one thing, Fitzgerald said, the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require an appellant to identify an issue of fact arising from evidence in the record controverting the evidence used to support the summary judgment motion. But Kitchen “totally failed” to controvert the independent medical examination, which said he remained extremely active after the accident and the residual pain was attributable to his activity level. Because his pain is “the product of his own lifestyle,” his case is distinguishable from Cadena and Kelly, Fitzgerald said.
Additionally, the plaintiffs in those cases had their day-to-day lives “seriously impaired” and Kitchen's impact was minimal in comparison, “far from enough to classify it as serious impairment of bodily function,” Fitzgerald said.
Steven Wolfe, who represented Kitchen, said he did not believe the Superior Court's decision was correct. Anthony Zabicki, who represented Kruman, did not return a call for comment.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllPa. High Court to Weigh Parent Company's Liability for Dissolved Subsidiary's Conduct
3 minute readDon’t Settle for the Minimum: Finding Constitutional Claims Closer to Home
7 minute readMatt's Corner: RPC 8.4(d)—Conduct Prejudicial to the Administration of Justice
2 minute readPa. Judicial Nominee Advances While Trump Demands GOP Unity Against Biden Picks
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1The Pusillanimous Press
- 2Contract Lifecycle Management Company ContractPodAi Unveils Leah Drive
- 3'Great News' for Businesses? Judge Halts Transparency Mandate
- 4Consilio Announces ‘Native AI Review,’ Expanding Its Gen AI E-Discovery Offerings
- 5Federal Judge Hits US With $227,000 Sanction for Discovery Misconduct
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250