On December 20, 2024, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, in a published decision, upheld a trial court’s decision that a defendant’s failure to answer a complaint did not result in a “default” on issues, but a damages assessment, holding that a defendant could still contest causation of injury at trial despite the lack of an answer. The issue arose in a personal injury action wherein the plaintiff alleged that she suffered a fracture after falling on the defendant’s premises. The plaintiff filed suit on February 19, 2020, alleging negligence against the defendant. The plaintiff served the complaint against the defendant on February 27, 2020, with a notice to defend, instructing the defendant to file an Answer to the complaint within twenty (20) days. The defendant did not file an answer and new matter to the complaint, however, until June 15, 2022, over two years after service of the complaint. The plaintiff consequently filed preliminary objections, seeking to strike the answer and new matter altogether under Pa. R.C.P. 1029(b). The trial court sustained the preliminary objections, and the case proceeded to trial without defendant’s answer.
At trial, the plaintiff’s counsel attempted to argue that, because there was no answer to the complaint filed, the matter should simply be an assessment of damages. The trial court, however, denied this request. At trial, the plaintiff admitted on cross-examination that her own injuries may have other causes, including another fall the plaintiff had previously at her home. The jury ultimately determined that the defendant was negligent, but that the defendant’s negligence was not the cause of plaintiff’s injuries. Ultimately, the jury awarded the plaintiff $0. After the plaintiff’s post-trial motions were denied, the plaintiff appealed to the Pennsylvania Superior Court.
At the outset, the Derbyshire Court found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in striking the defendant’s answer. Citing Peters Creek Sanitary Authority v. Welch, 681 A.2d 167 (Pa. 1996), the Derbyshire court held that a blatant disregard of the time limitations set forth in the Rules of Civil Procedure warrants sanctions. The legal effect of such a sanction, however, did not have the import the plaintiff proposed. Citing to a prior nonprecedential Superior Court opinion, Knudsen v. Elliot Brownstein, M.D., et al., 2019 WL 4273894 (Pa. Super. Ct. , Sep. 9, 2019), and a Texas Supreme Court decision, Morgan v. Compugraphic Corp., 675 S.W. 2d 729 (Tex. 1984), the Derbyshire Court reasoned that a default only established “legal responsibility for the event upon which the suit is based.” A default does not establish causation, “the causal connection between the event sued upon and damages.” Specifically, the Derbyshire Court held that, even for an assessment of damages, the plaintiff needed to demonstrate that the defendant’s conduct caused the plaintiff damages. Here, the plaintiff admitted several facts that allowed for the jury to reasonably conclude the defendant’s conduct was not the cause of her damages. The Derbyshire Court affirmed the trial court’s denial of post-trial motions.
The Derbyshire decision can be found here.
For additional questions, please contact Christopher S. Regan, Esq. or Conrad James Benedetto, Esq.
This article was prepared by McCormick & Priore, P.C. to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is in no way intended to provide legal advice or to create an attorney-client relationship. All Rights Reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of McCormick & Priore, P.C.
