George Manuel v. Richard Leighton, et al.

Towanda, Pennsylvania personal injury lawyers represented Plaintiff, who sued Defendants on wrongful death theories.





The Plaintiff in this wrongful-death action, George Manuel, Administrator of his mother Rosemary Manuel's estate, appeals from the judgment entered in his favor and against Richard Leighton for $594,945.21. The parties agree Mr. Leighton drove while drunk, collided with Ms. Manuel's car, and caused her death. The Administrator believes two bars - the Monroeton Rod & Gun Club ("the Gun Club") and The New Bucket, Inc.[1] - are also liable for his mother's death, because they served Mr. Leighton several beers prior to the incident. A Bradford County jury rejected the Administrator's claims against the bars.



The trial court summarized the facts as follows:



This civil case arose out of the [March 13, 2014] death of Rosemary Manuel from a motor-vehicle accident that occurred as a direct result of the negligence of Richard Leighton who pled guilty in a separate, criminal proceeding to homicide by vehicle while driving under the influence of alcohol. Liability on the part of Mr. Leighton was admitted. See [N.T.], 8/21/20, at 171-72. The contested issues resulted from the Dram Shop action that [the Administrator] filed against . . . the two bars at which Mr. Leighton was served and consumed beer, The New Bucket and the [Gun Club] . . .



The principal issue at trial was whether either or both bars served Mr. Leighton at a time when he was visibly intoxicated. Because video surveillance from each bar captured the day's events, there was no dispute that he was served at least eight beers at The New Bucket over 3 ½ hours (from a little before 12:00 noon to nearly 3:30 p.m.) and was served two beers at [the Gun Club] over less than 50 minutes (from about 3:40 p.m. to almost 4:30 p.m.). According to the testimony of the bartender at [the Gun Club], she told Mr. Leighton he'd "had enough" after observing him fumble with his cigarette and try to light it backwards. [N.T.], 8/20/20, at 230-235. After that, Mr. Leighton did not drink any more beer, leaving the rest of his unfinished beer on the counter. The crash occurred at or about 4:34 p.m., approximately 5 minutes after Mr. Leighton left [the Gun Club. See N.T.], 8/21/20, at 59-61.



2



Trial Court Opinion, 4/23/21, at 1. A few hours later, Ms. Manuel died.



As mentioned, the Administrator sued Mr. Leighton. He also sued the two bars under theories of negligence per se (for allegedly violating the Dram Shop Act) and common-law negligence (for allegedly failing to serve alcohol and to operate their establishments in a reasonably prudent manner).



Ms. Westbrook, the manager of the Gun Club, served as its corporate designee in this lawsuit. Throughout her testimony, the Administrator's attorney asked Ms. Westbrook a string of hypothetical questions. Based upon her answers, the Administrator moved for a directed verdict against the Gun Club. The trial court denied his motion.



Also, during trial, the Administrator expressed concerns with the video from the Gun Club's security cameras. Notably, that video (which a third-party company burned to a CD and provided to the Pennsylvania State Police shortly after Ms. Manuel's death) plays back at superfast speed.[2] The video also has several recording gaps. The Administrator believed those gaps were the result of the Gun Club either deleting scenes or directing the third-party



3



company to burn only certain sections to the CD. Thus, he sought a jury instruction on spoilation of evidence, which the trial court denied.



The Administrator's insinuation of an altered video prompted the Gun Club to ask one of its experts (Joseph Kolins) about the recording's gaps. The Administrator objected, because Mr. Kolins neither discussed nor opined on the gaps in his expert report. The trial court overruled the objection. Mr. Kolins testified that the gaps, which were each about 1 minute and 40 seconds in length, resulted from normal resets of the motion-detector camera. Thus, in the expert's opinion, no one altered the surveillance video.



At the conclusion of trial, based upon the parties' stipulations, the trial court directed a verdict finding Mr. Leighton negligent. After deliberations, the jury ruled that neither bar was negligent. The jury also awarded $500,000 in damages to the Estate of Ms. Manual from the car accident.



The trial court denied the Administrator post-trial relief, but granted $94,945.21 in delay damages, and entered a judgment in favor of the Estate.

Affirmed