Blockbuster case law was not voluminous in 2003. But several decisions gave Pennsylvania lawyers guidance in unsettled areas of law.
The court issued a major ruling on insurance bad faith. In Mishoe v. Erie Insurance Co., PICS Case No. 03-0837 (Pa. May 30, 2003) Nigro, J.; Castille, J., concurring; Cappy, J., dissenting (27 pages), the justices ruled that Section 8371 of the state’s bad faith law did not afford plaintiffs the right to a jury trial. The court ruled, 3-2, with two justices not participating, that issues of bad faith and punitive damages are to be determined by trial judges.
The justices, in an opinion written by Justice Russell M. Nigro, pointed out that the General Assembly was silent on the right of a bad faith plaintiff to have a jury trial. Since the bad faith cause of action arose from statute and not common law, the state Constitution did not guarantee a jury trial in such cases.
As the year ended, the justices decided Caso v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board PICS Case No. 03-2035 (Pa. Dec. 30, 2003) Eakin, J.; Newman, J. concurring (12 pages), ruling that vocational experts need not be pre-approved before testifying that injured workers have recovered enough to take on available jobs in the local labor market. The ruling breaks what has been almost a two-year logjam hampering employees from obtaining workers’ compensation benefit modification orders
Perhaps the most significant clarification of Pennsylvania tort law came in Phillips v. Cricket Lighters, PICS Case No. 03-1909 (Pa. Dec. 3, 2003) Cappy, C.J.; Saylor, J., concurring; Newman, J., concurring and dissenting (46 pages).
In a decision that explicitly separated the concepts of negligence and products liability, the state Supreme Court ruled, 4-3, that for plaintiffs to sustain a strict liability claim in a design defect case, they must prove that the product was unsafe for its intended user.
The plaintiff had argued that the manufacturer should be held strictly liable for designing a product that was unsafe for any foreseeable user.
But in the lead opinion, Chief Justice Ralph J. Cappy wrote that “[s]trict liability focuses solely on the product, and is divorced from the conduct of the manufacturer. With such a cause of action, it would be the height of illogic to introduce a test which examines whether the manufacturer acted with due care.”
Three justices, led by Justice Thomas G. Saylor, said that Pennsylvania courts should follow the Restatement (Third) of Torts and apply a negligence-based standard in design defect cases, looking at the manufacturer’s conduct in making the product.
In the most significant decision affecting the legal profession, captioned Shaulis v. Pennsylvania State Ethics Commission, PICS Case No. 03-1540 (Pa. Oct. 1, 2003) Newman, J.; Lamb, J., concurring; Eakin, J., concurring and dissenting; Saylor, dissenting (28 pages), the Supreme Court defended its exclusive authority to regulate the practice of law.
A splintered Supreme Court in October struck down a section of the state’s Public Official and Employee Ethics Act as unconstitutional. A four-justice majority, led by Justice Sandra Schultz Newman, said that the statute, which barred former government counsel from representing clients before the public body that employed them for one year after leaving the government, regulated the practice of law — an area carved out exclusively for the Supreme Court.
In August, the justices decided that challenges to declaratory orders should follow the same procedure as that for other post trial orders. Losing parties, a majority said in Motorists Mutual Insurance Co. v. Pinkerton, PICS Case No. 03-1309 (Pa. Aug. 20, 2003) Nigro, J.; Newman, J. and Saylor, J., concurring (18 pages), must file post trial motions instead of immediately appealing.
Allowing parties to appeal without first filing post trial motions “would deprive the trial court of [its] critical gate-keeping function, while doing little to expedite appellate review,” Justice Russell M. Nigro said.
Justice J. Michael Eakin said this summer that minors may not seek continuing support payments from the estates of deceased parents. In Benson v. Estate of Patterson, PICS Case No. 03-1329 (Pa. Aug. 27, 2003) Eakin, J.; Cappy, C.J., concurring; Newman, J., dissenting (16 pages), Eakin said that to secure the right to support payments from a parent’s estate, the General Assembly would have to create it.
In City of Philadelphia v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, PICS Case No. 03-1770 (Pa. Nov. 7, 2003) Saylor, J. (44 pages), the justices overturned a state law that lessened the City of Philadelphia’s control over the Pennsylvania Convention Center, reasoning that it was passed as a non-germane, last-minute amendment to an unrelated bill.
Saylor said that the state constitution prohibited the use of “omnibus bills” to crowd numerous unrelated measures under the heading of the same bill. Former Pennsylvania Trial Lawyers Association President Clifford A. Rieders said that the high court’s decision could bring an end to the legislative practice of “log-rolling,” common in the waning moments of the General Assembly’s sessions.
There may be even more impact from cases heard by the court in 2003 but not yet decided.
Awaiting decision by the justices are Grady v. Frito-Lay Inc., in which the justices have a chance to clarify Pennsylvania law on the admission of scientific evidence, and Wagner v. Erie Insurance Co., in which the high court has been asked to decide whether absolute pollution exclusions in a fuel station’s liability policy precludes coverage of damages caused by an underground gasoline leak.
Comings and Goings
Finally, it was a year of comings and goings. On New Year’s Day, Cappy began what could be an 11-year tenure as leader of the high court, succeeding former Chief Justice Stephen A. Zappala. Justice William H. Lamb was appointed and confirmed to serve a one-year interim term as an associate justice. In November, the voters of Pennsylvania chose Democrat Max Baer of the Allegheny County Common Pleas Court to join the court in 2004. And former Chief Justice Robert .C. Nix Jr., the first African American to lead any state judiciary, died in August.
Zappala, who completed 22 years as a member of the court on Jan. 1, 2003, stayed with the court in the capacity of chief justice emeritus to oversee the computerization of Pennsylvania’s trial courts, a project he spearheaded as chief justice.
Cappy took over with the priority of creating greater intellectual coherence on the court. In many cases, the justices had been unable to muster a clear majority because of the proliferation of concurring opinions. Observers said that Cappy’s pragmatism and skill at personal relationships will enable him to build consensus on the often-divided court.
Early on, the court was still handing down many “opinions announcing the judgment of the court,” or non-majority opinions, but the pace of such opinions appeared to abate as the year wore on.
Lamb, a Chester County lawyer and former district attorney, was nominated by former Gov. Mark S. Schweiker, a Republican, and endorsed by Gov. Edward G. Rendell, a Democrat. He was easily confirmed and provided the high court with a full complement of seven justices for 2003.
The election of Baer, who was helped to victory by large voter turnout in Allegheny County and Philadelphia, where Democrats won high-profile executive posts, restores the court to a 4-3 balance favoring the Republicans. While Lamb sat on the court, the GOP enjoyed a 5-2 majority. Baer, a Democrat, defeated the GOP candidate, Superior Court Judge Joan Orie Melvin of Allegheny County. Significantly, Baer took advantage of the free speech afforded judicial candidates by the U.S. Supreme Court in a 2002 decision to tell voters that he favored abortion rights for women and opposed damage caps in medical malpractice cases. Orie Melvin refused to make issue statements in her campaign.
Shortly after Orie Melvin’s defeat, she suffered another setback in the Supreme Court itself. In her defamation case against unknown posters on a Web site, Melvin v. Doe, PICS Case No. 03-1850 (Pa. Nov.19, 2003) Lamb, J.; Cappy, C.J., concurring (16 pages), the court said it would not force Internet service providers to divulge the names of anonymous authors of allegedly defamatory content, unless the plaintiff first proves that she suffered actual economic harm.
The case is the first in the nation to test whether the right to free speech includes the right to remain anonymous while speaking. While the court did not decide the constitutional issue itself, Lamb did say that “the court-ordered disclosure of appellants’ identities presents a significant possibility of trespass upon their First Amendment rights” and that therefore the plaintiff must bear the burden of proving disclosure necessary by proving economic damages.
For the justices in that case, led by Lamb, the First Amendment right to free speech is so important that the identity of the speaker must be protected unless the plaintiff first demonstrates the need for such disclosure.
“There is no question that, generally, the constitutional right to anonymous free speech is a right deeply rooted in public policy that goes beyond this particular litigation, and that it falls within the class of rights that are too important to be denied review,” Lamb wrote.
In her lawsuit, Orie Melvin said she was defamed when an anonymous person posted on a political web site the allegation that she lobbied former Gov. Tom Ridge to appoint a friend to the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas.
Nix was remembered as the high court’s “consummate gentleman” by Cappy.
Born in 1928 when the “separate-but-equal” doctrine of Plessy v. Ferguson was the controlling racial policy of the country, Nix built a private practice of law primarily as a criminal defense lawyer. As chief justice, Nix steered the court through one of its most contentious periods, much of it stirred up by former Justice Rolf Larsen’s attempt to succeed to the chief’s chair by campaigning for Nix’s rejection in a retention vote. Nix, a Democrat, secured the endorsement of Republicans and won approval for his second 10-year term on the Supreme Court.
Former Supreme Court clerk William P. Murphy of Murphy & Goldstein credited Nix as a “true scholar on the court” with the ability to integrate public policy into his legal analysis and reflect the interest of Pennsylvania consumers.
