Anger, guns and squirrels create problems begetting problems: En banc Pennsylvania Superior clarifies collateral estoppel effect of criminal conviction.
Lloyd Thomas, who had some history of mental instability, was to watch his father’s property, which included a small gun shop. The property is in a rather remote part of Susquehanna County (even Google Maps can’t find the address listed in the court’s opinion). Noticing squirrels disturbing the birdfeeder, which Thomas had previously installed for his father, he decided to shoot (at) them with a pistol. At the same time, Joshua Rogers was driving near the home. A bullet hit Rogers’ car, sending things downhill from there.
Rather than contact police, Rogers—who was prohibited from having access to a firearm—armed himself and went with a friend to Thomas’s father’s home. The duo parked the car so as to block the sole drive up to the house. They then split up to approach the house from either side via the woods. Thomas saw them and armed himself. Rogers “shoved a shotgun in [Thomas’s] face,” whereupon Thomas shot him twice. Rogers’ friend came from the gun shop wielding a shotgun and “showed no fear” as he walked directly toward Thomas. Thomas therefore shot the friend also. Both Rogers and the friend died, and Thomas was convicted of voluntary manslaughter at a trial.
In the civil suit by Rogers’ estate for wrongful death, the trial court granted the plaintiff’s partial summary judgment motion, holding the conviction barred Thomas from re-litigating his intent in shooting Rogers. However, the summary judgment did not establish Thomas’s “liability,” and so the question of Rogers’ comparative negligence was tried. The jury found Rogers “100% comparatively negligent,” and judgment was entered for Thomas.
Conducting a scholarly review of the jurisprudence governing admission of issues in civil trials that were litigated in criminal trials, the en banc Superior Court concluded that the criminal conviction established, conclusively, that Thomas (a) intentionally killed Rogers and (b) labored under no reasonable belief that it was necessary. However, “it did not conclusively establish that he was liable for civil damages,” which can only be “awarded after establishing causation,” including comparative negligence. Even if the criminal conviction conclusively established duty and breach—that is, negligence per se—it did not establish all the elements of a tort claim for negligence, which includes causation. The issue of causation for both Thomas and Rogers was properly submitted to the jury, and its finding of more-than-50% comparative negligence was affirmed.
Be not dismayed, you who are retained to represent civil defendants with a criminal conviction for the very incident giving rise to the civil case. The conclusive effect of the conviction may not cover all the elements of the tort claim, thus, leaving a path to victory open to you.
Case Law Alerts, 2nd Quarter, April 2023 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. Copyright © 2023 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.