eNotes: Liability – December 2024 – Federal

SIGNIFICANT CASE SUMMARIES

Federal Case Summaries

Naimoli v. Pro-Football Inc.
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
No. 23-2020

Decided: October 29, 2024

Purchasing online e-tickets does not automatically create a contract or bind the buyer to the seller’s terms and conditions.

Background

Through a website called “TickPick,” Brandon Gordon purchased nine electronic tickets to attend a football game between the Philadelphia Eagles and the Washington Football Team. He purchased tickets for himself and eight others and stored the tickets on his iPhone. On game day, Brandon presented all nine tickets at the entrance gate, allowing him and his eight guests entrance. At the end of the game, the group went to congratulate the Eagles players on their win. Four group members leaned against the railing to give “high-fives.” The railing broke and the four Plaintiffs fell. They filed suit against Pro-Football Team, Inc., the owner of the Washington Football Team, and others (collectively “Defendants”). Defendants filed a Motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the agreement to arbitrate contained in the Terms & Conditions associated with the tickets.

The District Court denied the Motion to compel arbitration. The District Court held that there was a factual dispute as to whether Gordon entered into a contract, binding him to the Terms & Conditions associated with the tickets because of the inconspicuous nature of the Terms & Conditions on the website and ticket itself. Gordon claimed that at no time during the purchasing process was he shown or directed to the Washington Football Team’s Terms & Conditions. Defendants argued that even if Gordon did not encounter Terms & Condition on the website, they were listed on the back of each ticket. To view them, Gordon had to click three small dots in the top corner of the ticket to virtually flip the ticket over and read the Terms & Conditions. The District Court did not make a factual determination on whether this was sufficient to create a contract. Rather, it denied the Motion to compel based on agency. Defendants filed this appeal.

Holding

The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that the traditional principles of contract formation – offer, acceptance, and consideration – are not enough to form a contract regarding online e-ticket sales. Further, the duty-to-read principle applicable to traditional contracts must “take account” of the realities of the internet – i.e., users do not often scroll, follow links, etc. Thus, whether purchasing e-tickets creates a contract depends on two elements: (1) whether the website design gave the buyer notice of the seller’s Terms & Conditions, and (2) whether the buyer assented to those Terms & Conditions. “[C]onstructive notice cannot be presumed if obtaining it requires clicking all available boxes on the computer screen.” Here, the Terms & Conditions were located on the back of the e-ticket, which could only be accessed by tapping three small dots in the top corner of the ticket. Further, it was disputed whether any Terms & Conditions were posted on the purchasing website. As such, the Fourth Circuit remanded the case to the District Court to make factual determinations on these issues, consistent with the two-element test for determining contract formation for online e-tickets.

Questions about this case can be directed to Alex Mitchell at (443) 641-0563, or amitchell@tthlaw.com.

MacKey v. Chipotle Mexican Grill of Colo., LLC
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
No. 23-519

Decided: October 16, 2024

Medical records of alcohol consumption may be considered for life expectancy costs.

Background

This is a premises liability action where Plaintiff John Mackey sued Defendant Chipotle for personal injuries from a fall. The central issue in this case was whether Mr. Mackey’s history of alcohol consumption should be admissible. Mr. Mackey moved to preclude the introduction of his alcohol consumption, arguing that it was irrelevant and prejudicial. Chipotle contended that Mr. Mackey’s consumption was relevant to his projected life expectancy and to help explain the cause of his fall. Medical records revealed that Mr. Mackey had a documented history of significant alcohol use. Physicians’ notes provided evidence of daily consumption of alcohol and diagnosed Mr. Mackey with alcohol abuse.

Chipotle contended that this information was highly probative for calculating Mr. Mackey’s long term health care costs and life expectancy. This information was important particularly because Plaintiff’s life care plan was based on the assumption that his life expectancy was to age 85. According to the life care plan, Mr. Mackey’s annual cost of care would have been $353,559, totaling over $4.2 million, assuming an 85-year life expectancy. This did not account for any of Mr. Mackey’s conditions that would have an impact on his life expectancy, including alcohol use.

Holding

The Court ruled that evidence of Mackey’s alcohol consumption was admissible for the limited purpose of assessing life expectancy. The Court stated that because life expectancy is the single most critical determinant of the estimated damages, factors that may influence it are highly relevant. While the Court also understood that this information could have a prejudicial impact, the Court stated that this could be mitigated with a cautionary instruction designed to limit such prejudice. Additionally, the Court excluded any reference to alcohol use as a cause of Mr. Mackey’s falls. The Court found that there was no reliable evidence to suggest the intoxication contributed to the fall. Therefore, the Court granted in part and denied in part Mr. Mackey’s Motion to exclude evidence, allowing Chipotle to introduce the alcohol consumption evidence for only life expectancy purposes.

Questions about this case can be directed to Jhanvi Jamindar at (717) 441-7056 or jjamindar@tthlaw.com.

Henry v. Marcelin
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 173705

Decided: September 25, 2024

Lyft has no generalized duty to investigate it’s driver’s propensity for dangerous driving in the context of claims of negligent hiring, retention, training, supervision and entrustment.

Background

This civil action arises from a motor vehicle collision that occurred in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Plaintiff Lakisha Henry claims that she sustained injuries while she was a passenger in a vehicle which was allegedly struck by Defendant Esdras Marcelin, who was actively working as a Lyft driver at the time of the incident. Plaintiff asserts a negligence claim against Defendant Marcelin (Count I). She also asserts claims against Defendant Lyft, Inc. for negligent hiring, retention, training, supervision and entrustment (Count II) and for respondeat superior liability (Count III). Lyft moved for partial judgment on the pleadings, arguing that Count II of Henry’s Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

Holding

The Pennsylvania Eastern District Court granted Lyft’s Motion for partial judgment on the pleadings because Plaintiff did not allege enough facts to state a plausible claim for relief against Lyft for Count II. The Court concluded that the Complaint was devoid of any identification of past misconduct that would put a reasonable employer on notice of an employee’s propensity for dangerous activity, and instead, implicitly asks this Court to presume a generalized duty to investigate. The Court declined to presume that such a duty exists because, under Pennsylvania law, lessors – who are arguably similarly situated to Lyft – do not have a duty to investigate a lessee’s driving records unless they affirmatively assume responsibility from their lessee.

Questions about this case can be directed to Haley Obrzut at (717)-255-7646 or hobrzut@tthlaw.com.