Trial Court Allows Punitive Damages Claim to Proceed in Campground Bleacher Fall Case, Citing Monroe Standard

A Pennsylvania trial court overruled primary objections to claims of punitive damages when the plaintiffs’ alleged material facts to state a cognizable claim for negligence and generally averred that the defendant acted intentionally, recklessly, maliciously, and/or with evil motive.

The minor plaintiff was injured when the minor fell from a bleacher located at the defendant’s campground. The plaintiffs alleged that the bleacher was a dangerous condition as it was not fully enclosed and did not have a railing or barriers on the sides to prevent falls. In their complaint, the plaintiffs sought punitive damages.

The defendant filed preliminary objections, arguing that neither the law nor the facts supported the claims for punitive damages. In deciding the preliminary objections, the trial court relied upon the Superior Court of Pennsylvania’s holding in Monroe v. CBH20, LP, 286 A.3d 785 (Pa. Super. 2022). The trial court held, “[f]ollowing the ruling in Monroe, preliminary objections challenging the legal sufficiency of punitive damages claims should be overruled so long as the plaintiff alleges facts stating a prima facie tort claim and generally avers that the defendant acted willfully, wantonly, or recklessly.” The trial court found that in their complaint, the plaintiffs alleged material facts that stated a cognizable claim for negligence against the defendant. The trial court also found that the plaintiffs generally averred that the defendant acted intentionally, recklessly, maliciously and/or with evil motive, which were “state-of-mind issues” that “may only be resolved as a matter of law after discovery has closed.”

The trial court overruled the defendant’s preliminary objections “at this stage to be revisited after discovery through pre-trial motions.”