eNotes: Liability – December 2023 – Federal

SIGNIFICANT CASE SUMMARIES

Federal Case Summaries

Givens v. Walmart Stores, Inc.
Third Circuit Court of Appeals
No. 22-2989

Decided: October 31, 2023

Plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie claim for malicious prosecution when there was probable cause for arrest.

Background

On May 13, 2021, a retail theft of tools occurred at the West Brownsville Walmart and Givens was arrested in connection with the theft. Givens’ retail theft charge was dismissed on a Writ of habeas corpus after video evidence was not provided by the prosecution. Givens then sued Walmart for malicious prosecution asserting that the store improperly provided his name to the police, and that solely due to this misidentification, the criminal charges were filed against him. He further asserted that he could not have committed the theft as he was at work that day.

Walmart removed the case to Federal Court. Walmart then filed a Motion to dismiss asserting that Givens failed to state a claim because the Affidavit of probable cause evidenced that Givens’ arrest was also based on the identification of Givens by one of the co-actors in the theft. The District Judge agreed that the identification of Givens by another actor in the theft was enough to establish probable cause for the arrest. The District Court noted that lack of probable cause was required to maintain a claim for malicious prosecution. Because the police had probable cause to arrest Givens based on the identification made by the co-actor, regardless of the information supplied by Walmart, Givens had no claim for malicious prosecution against Walmart. Givens appealed.

Holding

The Third Circuit, in a non-precedential opinion, affirmed the District Court’s dismissal. A showing of probable cause for the arrest defeats the claim. The Third Circuit noted that so long as there were “objective” facts available to the police at the time of the arrest to justify a reasonable belief that an offense was committed, then probable cause was met. It is irrelevant if innocence is claimed or later established. Simply, the Third Circuit agreed that the statement by the third party, with no relationship to Walmart, identifying Givens as an actor in the theft was sufficient to meet the “low bar” of probable cause.

Questions about this case can be directed to Rebecca Sember-Izsak at (412) 926-1446 or rsember@tthlaw.com, or to Rick Murphy at (412) 926-1443 or rmurphy@tthlaw.com.

Nails v. Amguard Ins. Co.
United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
No. 3:23-CV-557

Decided: July 10, 2023

Plaintiff cannot maintain a direct cause of action against her alleged tortfeasor’s liability insurance carrier under Pennsylvania law.

Background

Plaintiff Angela Nails filed a pro se lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, seeking money damages for alleged personal injuries arising out of an automobile accident occurring on February 14, 2022. Plaintiff’s Complaint named three Defendants: the alleged tortfeasor who struck her car, Jerry Privette; Privette’s employer, Hide-N-Seek Towing; and the tortfeasor’s insurance carrier, Amguard Insurance Company. Defendant Amguard filed a Motion to dismiss, arguing that Pennsylvania law does not permit Plaintiff Nails to maintain a direct cause of action against the tortfeasor’s insurance carrier.

Holding

United States Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson held that Plaintiff Nails may not maintain a direct action against Defendant Amguard, recommending that Defendant Amguard’s Motion to dismiss be granted in accordance with Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court found that Pennsylvania law plainly forecloses Plaintiff Nails claims against Defendant Amguard.

Questions about this case can be directed Randy Burch at (610) 332-7205 or rburch@tthlaw.com.

Derry v. Blackman
United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
No. 3:21-CV-01744

Decided: May 16, 2023

Jury’s zero dollar verdict upheld in admitted liability case where testimony was presented to dispute existence, severity and cause of alleged injuries.

Background

Defendant admitted liability at the close of discovery in a motor vehicle collision lawsuit. However, Defendant disputed the nature, extent and causation of Plaintiff’s alleged injuries. After hearing evidence from both parties, including medical experts on behalf of each, the jury returned a verdict awarding the Plaintiff zero dollars in damages. Plaintiff filed a Motion for new trial, arguing that the zero dollar verdict was against the weight of the evidence.

Holding

The District Court noted that, under Pennsylvania law, even if a jury finds that Plaintiff did suffer some pain and/or discomfort as a result of an accident, that the jury can determine that the injuries were not significant enough to warrant compensation. The District Court further noted that it was up to the jury to make credibility determinations as to the witnesses, including expert witnesses. Accordingly, the District Court denied the Plaintiff’s Motion for a new trial, finding that Plaintiff did not meet her burden of establishing that the zero dollar verdict was against the weight of the evidence.

Questions about this case can be directed to Brook Dirlam at (412) 926-1438 or bdirlam@tthlaw.com.