Source: http://cabadvantage.com/articles/category/cases-from-bits/c160-volume15-edition-9-cases/
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 00:34:38+00:00

Document:
Sripramot v. New Century Trans, Inc.
NEW CENTURY TRANS, INC., A & J Express, Inc. Avon Truck Lines, LLC, and HArmail Singh, an individual, Defendants.
Chad G. Boonswang, The Boonswang Law Firm, Philadelphia, PA, for Plaintiff.
Jay D. Branderbit, Kent & McBride, PC, Philadelphia, PA, Donald R. Dorer, Law Offices of Jacobs & Associates, Camp Hill, PA, for Defendants.
MARTIN C. CARLSON, United States Magistrate Judge.
*1 Pending before the Court is Defendant Harmail Singh’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s amended complaint in this case. The motion is fully briefed and ripe for disposition, and will be granted in part and denied in part.
FN1. After the pending motion to dismiss the amended complaint was filed, the parties subsequently entered into a stipulation to dismiss New Century as a Defendant in this case. (Doc. 22.) Thereafter, the Court entered an order approving the stipulation, and permitting the dismissal of New Century. (Doc. 23.) Accordingly, the remaining Defendants are Singh, A & J, and Avon.
Plaintiff has brought claims against all Defendants for “negligence, gross negligence, and/or recklessness” (Id., Count I), negligence per se (Id., Count II), intentional infliction of emotional distress (Id., Count III), and negligent infliction of emotional distress (Id., Count IV). Plaintiff alleges that he has suffered physical and mental injuries as a result of Defendants’ intentional or negligent conduct, and he seeks compensatory and punitive damages, expenses, fees, and costs in this litigation.
FN2. Singh has filed a substantially identical motion to dismiss Succhitra Daly’s amended complaint in Civil No. 11–2037. Given the overlap between the motions, and the substantially identical amended complaints that they challenge, we will enter a substantially similar order in Civil No. 11–2037.
*2 Plaintiff has filed a brief in opposition to the motion (Doc. 17.), and Singh declined to file a reply brief in further support of the motion. While the motion was pending, the parties consented to proceed before the undersigned judicial officer. (Doc. 16.) The motion is, therefore, fully briefed and is ripe for disposition by this Court. For the reasons that follow, the motion will be granted in part and denied in part.
Standards of pleading have been in the forefront of jurisprudence in recent years. Beginning with the Supreme Court’s opinion in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (12007) continuing with our opinion in Phillips v. County of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 230 (3d Cir.2008) and culminating recently with the Supreme Court’s decision in Ashcroft v. Iqbal 556 U.S. 662, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) pleading standards have seemingly shifted from simple notice pleading to a more heightened form of pleading, requiring a plaintiff to plead more than the possibility of relief to survive a motion to dismiss.
Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203, 209–10 (3d Cir.2009).
*3 [B]egin by identifying pleadings that because they are no more than conclusions are not entitled to the assumption of truth. While legal conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual allegations. When there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.
[A]fter Iqbal, when presented with a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, district courts should conduct a two-part analysis. First, the factual and legal elements of a claim should be separated. The District Court must accept all of the complaint’s well-pleaded facts as true, but may disregard any legal conclusions. Second, a District Court must then determine whether the facts alleged in the complaint are sufficient to show that the plaintiff has a “plausible claim for relief.” In other words, a complaint must do more than allege the plaintiff’s entitlement to relief. A complaint has to “show” such an entitlement with its facts.
Fowler, 578 F.3d at 210–11.
In practice, consideration of the legal sufficiency of a complaint entails a three-step analysis: “First, the court must ‘tak[e] note of the elements a plaintiff must plead to state a claim .’ Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1947. Second, the court should identify allegations that, ‘because they are no more than conclusions, are not entitled to the assumption of truth.’ Id. at 1950. Finally, ‘where there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement for relief.’ Id.” Santiago v. Warminster Tp., 629 F.3d 121, 130 (3d Cir.2010).
We will address each of Singh’s arguments in support of dismissal seriatim.
Singh first argues that Plaintiff’s claim for “gross negligence”—which is pleaded along with allegations of traditional “negligence” and “recklessness”—is not recognized under Pennsylvania law, and should, therefore, be dismissed. Plaintiff agrees that Pennsylvania law does not recognize separate causes of action for gross negligence, recklessness, or degrees of negligence, but maintains that his claim for negligence should be found adequately pled.
“[T]here is no separate cause of action under Pennsylvania law for gross negligence.” Spence v. ESAB Group, Inc., 623 F.3d 212, 215 n. 2 (3d Cir.2010) (citing Hunter v. Squirrel Hill Assocs., LP, 413 F.Supp.2d 517, 520 n. 2 (E.D.Pa.2005) (“While Pennsylvania courts acknowledge differing standards of care, they do not recognize degrees of negligence as separate causes of action.”)). See also Floyd v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 159 F.Supp.2d 823, 828 (E.D.Pa.2001) (dismissing plaintiff’s separately pleaded claim for gross negligence after concluding that under Pennsylvania law “ ‘gross negligence’ refers to a standard of care, rather than to a separate claim”).
*4 Although not recognized as a separate cause of action, gross negligence has been recognized by Pennsylvania and federal courts interpreting Pennsylvania law as “a form of negligence where the facts support substantially more than ordinary carelessness, inadvertence, laxity, or indifference.” Legion Indem. Co. v. Carestate Ambulance, Inc., 152 F.Supp.2d 707 (E.D.Pa.2001) (citing Albright v. Abington Memorial Hosp., 548 Pa. 268, 696 A.2d 1159 (Pa.1997)). Thus, Pennsylvania law acknowledges differing standards of care, but does not recognize degrees of negligence as separate causes of action. See Hunter, 413 F.Supp.2d at 520 n. 2 (citations omitted); see also Jordan v. City of Phila., 66 F.Supp.2d 638, 644 (E.D.Pa.1999) (the term “gross negligence refers only to a heightened standard of care, not to a cause of action distinct from ordinary negligence.”).
In this case, Plaintiff has not endeavored to plead a separate cause of action for gross negligence, but has instead merely included “gross negligence” as part of his negligence claim set forth in Count I. We find it unnecessary to dismiss this entire count, as Singh seems to suggest we do, simply because Plaintiff has alleged that Singh was reckless and grossly negligent in his operation of the tractor trailer he was operating on State Route 422 on June 29, 2011. Instead, we conclude that it is more appropriate to “allow Plaintiff [ ] to retain the pertinent allegation[s] … to support [his] claim for punitive damages.” Fiorentino v. Cabot Oil & Gas Corp., 750 F.Supp.2d 506, 514 (M.D.Pa.2010); see also Shouey ex rel. Litz v. Duck Head Apparel Co., 49 F.Supp.2d 413, 418 (M.D.Pa.1999) (treating a separate count alleging gross negligence as simply a claim of ordinary negligence); cf. Watts v. Hollock, NO. 3:10–CV–92, 2011 WL 6003922, at M.D. Pa.2011) (“[C]laims asserting a breach of a reckless standard and claims asserting a breach of a negligence standard both allege the tort of negligence.”).
“In order to prevail on a cause of action in negligence under Pennsylvania Law, a plaintiff must establish: (1) a duty or obligation recognized by law, requiring the actor to conform to a certain standard of conduct; (2) a failure to conform to the standard required; (3) a causal connection between the conduct and the resulting injury; and (4) actual loss or damage resulting to the interests of another. Morena [v. South Hills Health Sys., 501 Pa. 634, 462 A.2d 680, 684 n. 5 (Pa.1983) ] (citing Prosser, Law of Torts § 30, at 143 (e ed.1971).” Kleinknecht v. Gettysburg College, 989 F.2d 1360, 1366 (3d Cir.1993). While the latter three elements of this negligence standard, breach of duty, causation and damages, are fact-bound determinations, the threshold issue of whether a duty of care is owed presents a question of law for the Court to determine. Id.
Guided by these elements of a negligence claim under Pennsylvania law, we conclude that Sripramot’s amended complaint adequately pleads the elements of a negligence claim. The amended complaint outlines a duty of care owed by Singh to operate the vehicle he was driving in a reasonable, prudent and careful manner. The complaint further asserts a breach of duty by (a) failing to observe the applicable minimum speed restriction; (b) turning left, without warning, from the east-bound shoulder of the highway; (c) failing to maintain proper control of his vehicle; (d) failing to keep a proper lookout; (e) failing to observe the presence and proximity of approaching vehicles; and (f) failing to avoid a collision. Sripramot further alleges that he suffered identifiable harms as a result of what he alleges to be the accident which occurred as a result of Singh’s negligence. Because we find that Sripramot has adequately pleaded a claim for negligence, and because we find that he should be permitted to retain his allegations of grossly negligent or reckless conduct to support his claim for damages, we will deny Defendant’s motion to dismiss Count I.
FN4. It does appear that Plaintiff is asserting that the doctrine of respondeat superior provides a basis to hold the Defendant trucking companies liable in this action in their capacities as Singh’s alleged employers. In Pennsylvania, the “doctrine of respondeat superior does not establish a separate tort, but merely a principle by which employers can be held liable for the tortious acts of their employees.” See Peek v. Philadelphia Coca–Cola Bottling Co., No. 97–3372, 1997 WL 399379, at *1 n. 1 (E.D.Pa.1997).
Singh next moves to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress set forth in Count III of the amended complaint, arguing that Plaintiff has failed to plead facts that would be sufficient to permit him to prevail on this theory of liability, which in Pennsylvania covers only especially extreme and outrageous conduct by a tortfeasor. Plaintiff maintains that the amended complaint sufficiently states a claim for relief under this theory.
With respect to claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress, Pennsylvania law requires that a plaintiff plead that (1) the conduct was extreme and outrageous; (2) the conduct was intentional; (3) the conduct caused emotional distress; and (4) the distress was severe. Silver v. Mendel, 894 F.2d 598, 606 n. 16 (3d Cir.1990). Ultimately, in order to prevail on a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, a plaintiff must show that a defendant’s conduct exceeded the bounds of decency and is intolerable under prevailing societal norms. Swisher v. Pitz, 868 A.2d 1228, 1230 (Pa.Super.Ct.2005); see also Cox v. Keystone Carbon Co., 861 F.2d 390 (3d Cir.1988). See also DiSalvio v. Lower Merion Sch. Dist., No. Civ. A. 00–5463, 2002 WL 734343, at *6 (to prevail on a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, conduct must be “so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized society.”).
*6 Cases which have found a sufficient basis for a cause of action of intentional infliction of emotional distress have had presented only the most egregious conduct. See e.g., Papieves v. Lawrence, 437 Pa. 373, 263 A.2d 118 (1970) (defendant, after striking and killing plaintiff’s son with automobile, and after failing to notify authorities or seek medical assistance, buried body in a field where discovered two months later and returned to parents (recognizing but not adopting section 46)); Banyas v. Lower Bucks Hospital, 293 Pa.Super. 122, 437 A.2d 1236 (1981) (defendants intentionally fabricated records to suggest that plaintiff had killed a third party which led to plaintiff being indicted for homicide); Chuy v. Philadelphia Eagles Football Club, 595 F.2d 1265 (3d. Cir.1979) (defendant’s team physician released to press information that plaintiff was suffering from fatal disease, when physician knew such information was false).
Hoy, 720 A.2d at 754.
According to Singh, the allegations offered in the amended complaint in support of this claim fall well short of the level of outrageousness required to satisfy the first element of the claim. Instead, Singh insists that, if proven, the allegations of his conduct—falling asleep at the wheel, and operating his semi-truck in a negligent manner that caused physical and emotional injuries to Plaintiff and his mother—simply could not be found so outrageous and extreme in character as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and, therefore, this claim should be dismissed.
Plaintiff responds by arguing that operating a semi-truck while asleep at the wheel is so inherently dangerous, and presents such grave potential for extreme injuries such as those alleged in this case, that it is “inexcusable in a civilized society and reaches a level of outrageousness that falls under intentional infliction of emotional distress and surpasses the recklessness standard.” (Doc. 17, at 9.) In support of his argument, Plaintiff has cited to decisions of Pennsylvania and federal courts holding that falling asleep at the wheel is conduct that can, in certain instances, support a claim for criminal negligence and recklessness. (Doc. 17, at 9.) These cases FN5 do not, however, hold that claims alleging that a truck driver fell asleep and caused injury to others are sufficient to qualify as the kind of extreme and outrageous conduct that must be shown to prevail on a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. More fundamentally, these allegations would not permit an inference that the defendant committed an intentional tort while asleep since “[o]nce asleep, defendant was no longer capable of voluntary action or of conscious behavior.” Lobert v. Pack, 337 Pa. 103, 108, 9 A.2d 365, 368 (1939).
FN5. See Commonwealth v. Huggins, 575 Pa. 395, 836 A.2d 862 (Pa.2003); Darden–Munsell v. Dutch Maid Logistics, C.A. No. 10–103, 2011 WL 3325863 (W.D.Pa. July 13, 2011) (declining to dismiss plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages in a case brought against truck driver alleged to have driven an overloaded trailer, while intoxicated, and while exhausted from fatigue, in a negligent manner that resulted in the death of the plaintiff’s husband).
Upon consideration, we cannot agree with Plaintiff that he has pleaded facts that would, if proven, be sufficient to support a claim that Harmail Singh intentionally inflicted emotional distress upon him on June 29, 2011, through the negligent or even reckless operation of his tractor trailer. Instead, we find only that Plaintiff has adequately set forth claims alleging negligence, and even reckless conduct, but we do not read the amended complaint to make allegations of acts or omissions that are so extreme and outrageous that they could rise to the level necessary to support a claim under this tort theory. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress will be dismissed.
*7 Lastly, Singh moves the Court to dismiss Plaintiff’s claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress, arguing that Plaintiff has pleaded allegations of negligence, and that he suffered physical and emotional injuries as a result of this negligence, but maintaining that Plaintiff has not set forth an independent claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress.
the cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress is restricted to four factual scenarios: (1) situations where the defendant had a contractual or fiduciary duty toward the plaintiff; (2) the plaintiff was subjected to a physical impact; (3) the plaintiff was in a zone of danger, thereby reasonably experiencing a fear of impending physical injury; or (4) the plaintiff observed a tortious injury to a close relative.
Toney v. Chester County Hosp., 961 A.2d 192, 197–98 (Pa.Super.Ct.2008). In this case, as Plaintiff points out, the amended complaint contains allegations that meet three of these four scenarios. In the amended complaint, Plaintiff alleges that he suffered a physical impact due to Singh’s alleged negligence. (Doc. 11, Am.Compl.¶¶ 11–13.) Likewise, Plaintiff alleged that he was in a “zone of danger” of the collision, since he was mechanically extracted from the car wreckage resulting from the collision that was allegedly caused by Singh’s negligence. (Id. ¶¶ 12–13, 44.) Finally, Plaintiff has alleged that during the accident he witnessed injuries to a close relative, his mother. (Id. ¶ 44 .) Plaintiff claims that he suffered extreme emotional distress as a result of this incident, an incident in which he himself suffered severe physical injuries, was in a zone of danger as a passenger in the vehicle that was struck by Singh’s semi-truck, and witnessed a close relative suffer injuries attributable to Singh’s tortious conduct. On the basis of these allegations, we find that Plaintiff has adequately stated a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress under Pennsylvania law, and we will, therefore, deny Defendant’s motion to dismiss this claim.
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Defendant Harmail Singh’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s amended complaint (Doc. 12) is GRANTED with respect to Plaintiff’s claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress (Count III), but DENIED in all other respects.
Daly v. New Century Trans, Inc.
Jay D. Branderbit, Kent & McBride, PC, Philadelphia, PA, for Defendants.
FN1. After the pending motion to dismiss the amended complaint was filed, the parties subsequently entered into a stipulation to dismiss New Century as a Defendant in this case. (Doc. 34.) Thereafter, the Court entered an order approving the stipulation, and permitting the dismissal of New Century. (Doc. 35.) Accordingly, the remaining Defendants are Singh, A & J, and Avon.
FN2. Singh has filed a substantially identical motion to dismiss Peter Sripramot’s amended complaint in Civil No. 12–CV–0398. Given the overlap between the motions, and the substantially identical amended complaints that they challenge, we will enter a substantially similar order in Civil No. 12–CV–0398.
*2 Plaintiff has filed a brief in opposition to the motion (Doc. 30.), and Singh declined to file a reply brief in further support of the motion. While the motion was pending, the parties consented to proceed before the undersigned judicial officer. (Doc. 32.) The motion is, therefore, fully briefed and is ripe for disposition by this Court. For the reasons that follow, the motion will be granted in part and denied in part.
Singh first argues that Plaintiff’s claim for “gross negligence”—which is pleaded along with allegations of traditional “negligence” and “recklessness”—is not recognized under Pennsylvania law, and should, therefore, be dismissed. Plaintiff agrees that Pennsylvania law does not recognize separate causes of action for gross negligence, recklessness, or degrees of negligence, but maintains that her claim for negligence should be found adequately pled.
“[T]here is no separate cause of action under Pennsylvania law for gross negligence.” Spence v. ESAB Group, Inc., 623 F.3d 212, 215 n. 2 (3d Cir.2010) (citing Hunter v. Squirrel Hill Assocs. ., LP, 413 F.Supp.2d 517, 520 n. 2 (E.D.Pa.2005) (“While Pennsylvania courts acknowledge differing standards of care, they do not recognize degrees of negligence as separate causes of action.”)). See also Floyd v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 159 F.Supp.2d 823, 828 (E.D.Pa.2001) (dismissing plaintiff’s separately pleaded claim for gross negligence after concluding that under Pennsylvania law “ ‘gross negligence’ refers to a standard of care, rather than to a separate claim”).
In this case, Plaintiff has not endeavored to plead a separate cause of action for gross negligence, but has instead merely included “gross negligence” as part of her negligence claim set forth in Count I. We find it unnecessary to dismiss this entire count, as Singh seems to suggest we do, simply because Plaintiff has alleged that Singh was reckless and grossly negligent in his operation of the tractor trailer he was operating on State Route 422 on June 29, 2011. Instead, we conclude that it is more appropriate to “allow Plaintiff [ ] to retain the pertinent allegation[s] … to support [her] claim for punitive damages.” Fiorentino v. Cabot Oil & Gas Corp., 750 F.Supp.2d 506, 514 (M.D.Pa.2010); see also Shouey ex rel. Litz v. Duck Head Apparel Co., 49 F.Supp.2d 413, 418 (M.D.Pa.1999) (treating a separate count alleging gross negligence as simply a claim of ordinary negligence); cf. Watts v. Hollock, NO. 3:10–CV–92, 2011 WL 6003922, at M.D. Pa.2011) (“[C]laims asserting a breach of a reckless standard and claims asserting a breach of a negligence standard both allege the tort of negligence.”).
“In order to prevail on a cause of action in negligence under Pennsylvania Law, a plaintiff must establish: (1) a duty or obligation recognized by law, requiring the actor to conform to a certain standard of conduct; (2) a failure to conform to the standard required; (3) a causal connection between the conduct and the resulting injury; and (4) actual loss or damage resulting to the interests of another. Morena [v. South Hills Health Sys., 501 Pa. 634, 462 A.2d 680, 684 n. 5 (Pa.1983) (citing Prosser, Law of Torts § 30, at 143 (4t’ed.1971).” Kleinknecht v. Gettysburg College, 989 F.2d 1360, 1366 (3d Cir.1993). While the latter three elements of this negligence standard, breach of duty, causation and damages, are fact-bound determinations, the threshold issue of whether a duty of care is owed presents a question of law for the Court to determine. Id.
Guided by these elements of a negligence claim under Pennsylvania law, we conclude that Daly’s amended complaint adequately pleads the elements of a negligence claim. The amended complaint outlines a duty of care owed by Singh to operate the vehicle he was driving in a reasonable, prudent and careful manner. The complaint further asserts a breach of duty by (a) failing to observe the applicable minimum speed restriction; (b) turning left, without warning, from the east-bound shoulder of the highway; (c) failing to maintain proper control of his vehicle; (d) failing to keep a proper lookout; (e) failing to observe the presence and proximity of approaching vehicles; and (f) failing to avoid a collision. Daly further alleges that she suffered identifiable harms as a result of what she alleges to be the accident which occurred as a result of Singh’s negligence. Because we find that Daly has adequately pleaded a claim for negligence, and because we find that she should be permitted to retain her allegations of grossly negligent or reckless conduct to support her claim for damages, we will deny Defendant’s motion to dismiss Count I.
Singh next moves to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress set forth in Count III of the amended complaint, arguing that Plaintiff has failed to plead facts that would be sufficient to permit her to prevail on this theory of liability, which in Pennsylvania covers only especially extreme and outrageous conduct by a tortfeasor. Plaintiff maintains that the amended complaint sufficiently states a claim for relief under this theory.
According to Singh, the allegations offered in the amended complaint in support of this claim fall well short of the level of outrageousness required to satisfy the first element of the claim. Instead, Singh insists that, if proven, the allegations of his conduct—falling asleep at the wheel, and operating his semi-truck in a negligent manner that caused physical and emotional injuries to Plaintiff and her son—simply could not be found so outrageous and extreme in character as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and therefore this claim should be dismissed.
Plaintiff responds by arguing that operating a semi-truck while asleep at the wheel is so inherently dangerous, and presents such grave potential for extreme injuries such as those alleged in this case, that it is “inexcusable in a civilized society and reaches a level of outrageousness that falls under intentional infliction of emotional distress and surpasses the recklessness standard.” (Doc. 30, at 9.) In support of her argument, Plaintiff has cited to decisions of Pennsylvania and federal courts holding that falling asleep at the wheel is conduct that can, in certain instances, support a claim for criminal negligence and recklessness. (Doc. 30, at 9.) These cases FN5 do not, however, hold that claims alleging that a truck driver fell asleep and caused injury to others are sufficient to qualify as the kind of extreme and outrageous conduct that must be shown to prevail on a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. More fundamentally, these allegations would not permit an inference that the defendant committed an intentional tort while asleep since “[o]nce asleep, defendant was no longer capable of voluntary action or of conscious behavior.” Lobert v. Pack, 337 Pa. 103, 108, 9 A.2d 365, 368 (1939).
FN5. See Commonwealth v. Huggins, 575 Pa. 395, 836 A.2d 862 (Pa.2003); DardenMunsell v. Dutch Maid Logistics, C.A. No. 10–103, 2011 WL 3325863 (W.D.Pa. July 13, 2011) (declining to dismiss plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages in a case brought against truck driver alleged to have driven an overloaded trailer, while intoxicated, and while exhausted from fatigue, in a negligent manner that resulted in the death of the plaintiff’s husband).
Upon consideration, we cannot agree with Plaintiff that she has pleaded facts that would, if proven, be sufficient to support a claim that Harmail Singh intentionally inflicted emotional distress upon her on June 29, 2011, through the negligent or even reckless operation of his tractor trailer. Instead, we find only that Plaintiff has adequately set forth claims alleging negligence, and even reckless conduct, but we do not read the amended complaint to make allegations of acts or omissions that are so extreme and outrageous that they could rise to the level necessary to support a claim under this tort theory. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress will be dismissed.
Toney v. Chester County Hosp., 961 A.2d 192, 197–98 (Pa.Super.Ct.2008). In this case, as Plaintiff points out, the amended complaint contains allegations that meet three of these four scenarios. In the amended complaint, Plaintiff alleges that he suffered a physical impact due to Singh’s alleged negligence. (Doc. 27, Am.Compl.¶¶ 11–13.) Likewise, Plaintiff alleged that he was in a “zone of danger” of the collision, since he was mechanically extracted from the car wreckage resulting from the collision that was allegedly caused by Singh’s negligence. (Id. ¶¶ 12–13, 44.) Finally, Plaintiff has alleged that during the accident he witnessed injuries to a close relative, her son. (Id. ¶ 44.) Plaintiff claims that she suffered extreme emotional distress as a result of this incident, an incident in which she herself suffered severe physical injuries, was in a zone of danger as a passenger in the vehicle that was struck by Singh’s semi-truck, and witnessed a close relative suffer injuries attributable to Singh’s tortious conduct. On the basis of these allegations, we find that Plaintiff has adequately stated a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress under Pennsylvania law, and we will, therefore, deny Defendant’s motion to dismiss this claim.
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Defendant Harmail Singh’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s amended complaint (Doc. 28) is GRANTED with respect to Plaintiff’s claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress (Count III), but DENIED in all other respects.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 30
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 30
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.