Justices Weigh Waiver in Wrongful Death Case Over Drowned Triathlete
The intersection of contract and tort law took center stage Tuesday during the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's oral argument session involving a surviving spouse's efforts to bring a wrongful death suit after her husband drowned during the 2010 Philadelphia Triathlon.
May 16, 2018 at 02:10 PM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on The Legal Intelligencer
Philadelphia City Hall. Photo: Diego M. Radzinschi/ALM
The intersection of contract and tort law took center stage Tuesday during the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's oral argument session involving a surviving spouse's efforts to bring a wrongful death suit after her husband drowned during the 2010 Philadelphia Triathlon.
Attorney Craig Falcone of Sacchetta & Falcone, who represented the widow, told the justices that because the wrongful death statute allows a decedent's heirs to bring their own “separate and independent” claims, the fact that the triathlete signed a waiver releasing the organization from liability before the event does not extinguish the widow's claims.
However, several justices questioned whether the husband's assumption of risk through the contract nixed any duty that the event organizer had to both the husband and the widow.
“Your argument is clever, but … your problem is that the wrongful death statute says you need negligence,” Justice Max Baer said. “Implicit to negligence is a duty. The contract abrogates a duty.”
Holding otherwise, Baer said, could end the assumption of risk as a defense, which would lead to “thousands of lawsuits against any charitable organization” holding any event.
According to court records, the Philadelphia Triathlon consisted of a half-mile swim, a 15.7-mile bicycle race, and a 3.1-mile run. As part of the registration, each participant needed to pay a fee and sign a waiver and release form. Derek Valentino registered for the event in January 2010.
Valentino, court records said, entered the water for the swimming portion of the event at 8:30 a.m. June 26, 2010, but he did not complete the race, and his body was found in the Schuylkill River the following day.
Michele Valentino, acting as the administrator of Derek Valentino's estate, filed suit asserting wrongful death and survival claims.
The trial court initially sustained some preliminary objections and struck all references to gross negligence, recklessness and punitive damages, finding the allegations showed only ordinary negligence. After some discovery was completed, Philadelphia Triathlon LLC moved for summary judgment, and the court dismissed the plaintiff's claims.
During arguments Tuesday, Falcone contended that, under the Comparative Negligence Act, the defendants were unable to use the contract to completely bar the decedent's negligence claims, and therefore, Valentino's widow still had the ability to bring a wrongful death suit.
Spector Gadon & Rosen attorney Heather Eichenbaum, who represented the Philadelphia Triathlon, contended that the state government has not abolished the assumption of risk defense in circumstances like the one at issue, and therefore Valentino's claims, and any derivative claims sought by his widow, could not be brought.
Chief Justice Thomas Saylor, however, noted that the wrongful death statute clearly says that an heir's claims are not derivative of the decedent's claims, and therefore contracts cannot extinguish an heir's ability to cover.
Eichenbaum, circling back to Baer's comments, contended that, given the waiver, the triathlon did not owe Valentino any duty that his widow could sue over.
“The legislature has not abolished assumption of risk as a defense,” Eichenbaum said.
Early during the question-packed argument session argument session Justice Christine Donohue summed up her estimation of the case.
“I think this is a hard case,” Donohue said. “Factually and legally.”
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllCase Over Fatal Phila. Food Truck Explosion Resolved in $160M Pretrial Accord
Seeger Weiss Awarded $51M in Fees for 'Landmark' NFL Concussion Settlement
Lancaster Jury Awards $4M Over Misdiagnosis of Infant's Fatal Whooping Cough
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1After Mysterious Parting With Last GC, Photronics Fills Vacancy
- 2Latham Lures Restructuring Partners From Weil, Paul Weiss
- 3Haynes Boone, Hicks Thomas Get Dismissal of $1.3B Claims in 2022 Freeport LNG Terminal Explosion
- 4Immigration Under the Trump Administration: Five Things to Expect in the First 90 Days
- 5'Radical Left Judges'?: Trump Demands GOP Unity Against Biden's Judicial Picks
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250