Jones v. Cobbs

258 A.3d 520 (Table)

Quentin JONES and Deneen Jones Individually and as Personal Representatives for the Estate of Irene Abbey, Appellants

v.Darlene COBBS and Pittsburgh Care Partnership, Inc.

No. 1045 WDA 2020

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

Filed: June 11, 2021

MEMORANDUM BY COLINS, J.:

Quentin Jones and Deneen Jones (Plaintiffs), individually and as personal representatives for the Estate of Irene Abbey (Decedent), appeal from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County (trial court) granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants Darlene Cobbs and Pittsburgh Care Partnership, Inc. (collectively, Defendants) in a motor vehicle negligence action. For the reasons set forth below, we reverse.

This case arises out of an accident that occurred on April 14, 2017, in the City of Duquesne, when Ms. Cobbs lost control of a shuttle van that she was driving for her employer, Pittsburgh Care Partnership, Inc., and crashed it into at least one parked car and a building. At the time, Ms. Cobbs was transporting senior citizens from a Pittsburgh Care Partnership, Inc. day facility to their residences. Two senior citizens, Decedent and Nathaniel White, were riding in the van when the accident occurred, and they and Ms. Cobbs were injured and hospitalized as a result of the accident. Decedent passed away subsequent to the accident.

On June 19, 2018, Plaintiffs commenced this survival and wrongful death action against Defendants, seeking damages for the injuries that Decedent suffered in the accident and for her death, which Plaintiffs alleged was caused by those injuries. In their answer, Defendants admitted that the accident occurred and Decedent was a passenger in the van at the time, but alleged that that Ms. Cobbs suffered a sudden medical event that caused the collision and asserted the defense of sudden medical emergency. Defendants’ Answer and New Matter ¶¶6-7, 64. During discovery, Plaintiffs took the depositions of the only living witnesses who were in the van at the time of the accident, Mr. White¹ and Ms. Cobbs.

Mr. White testified that for several minutes before the accident, Ms. Cobbs was mumbling, repeating herself, and shaking and bobbing her head while she was driving. White Dep. at 26-34, 37, 52-54, 66-68. Mr. White testified that he asked Ms. Cobbs if she was all right and that after she did not respond, he asked her to pull the van over. Id. at 34, 55. He testified that Ms. Cobbs then pulled the van over and stopped and he unbuckled his seat belt and got up to check on her, but that when he got up, the van started up again and crashed into the car that was in front of it. Id. at 34-38, 54-55.

Ms. Cobbs testified that she was told by the doctors treating her after the accident that she had had a seizure and that she had no memory of the accident or of anything that happened in the week before the accident. Cobbs Dep. at 29, 34-35, 54-57, 87-89, 94, 107-10, 112-15, 119-22. Ms. Cobbs admitted, however, that she had hypertension and diabetes for years before the accident, that she knew that those conditions, if not properly monitored and controlled, could cause a seizure or stroke and affected her ability to safely drive, and that she had a mini-stroke in 2005 when her blood pressure was elevated. Id. at 59-67, 70-84, 88-89, 93.²

On July 20, 2020, Defendants moved for summary judgment on the ground that Ms. Cobbs suffered a seizure at the time of the accident and that the sudden medical emergency defense therefore barred liability. Plaintiffs, in response, did not dispute that Ms. Cobbs suffered a medical event at the time of the accident, but argued that there were material issues of facts as to the suddenness and foreseeability of the medical event that precluded summary judgment based on the deposition testimony of Mr. White and Ms. Cobbs. By order entered September 3, 2020, the trial court granted Defendants’ motion and entered judgment in Defendants’ favor on the ground that liability was barred by the sudden medical emergency defense, concluding that there was no evidence from which a jury could find that Ms. Cobbs knew or should have known that she was suffering a seizure prior to the accident. Trial Court Order, 9/3/20; Trial Court Opinion at 7-8.

Plaintiffs timely appealed. In this appeal, Plaintiffs argue that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment both because the sudden medical emergency defense is an affirmative defense on which Defendants bore the burden of proving the suddenness and unforeseeability of the seizure and because there was evidence from which a jury could find that the seizure was not sudden and unforeseen. We agree that both of these grounds bar summary judgment here.

Our standard of review of the trial court's grant of summary judgment is de novo and the scope of review is plenary. American Southern Insurance Co. v. Halbert , 203 A.3d 223, 226 (Pa. Super. 2019). Summary judgment may be granted only where there is no genuine issue of any material fact as to a necessary element of the cause of action or defense or where, after the completion of relevant discovery, the party who will bear the burden of proof at trial has failed to produce evidence of facts sufficient to prove all elements of the cause of action or defense. Pa.R.C.P. 1035.2 ; US Coal Corp. v. Dinning , 222 A.3d 431, 437-38 (Pa. Super. 2019) ; Renna v. PPL Electric Utilities, Inc. , 207 A.3d 355, 367-68 (Pa. Super. 2019). In considering whether there is a genuine issue of material fact or...