PA Supreme Court rules that doctrine of in pari delicto bars claims brought against pharmacy on behalf of decedent who overdosed.

The plaintiff’s decedent and the decedent’s friend jointly attempted to obtain opiates. The decedent’s friend obtained them by picking up his mother’s Fentanyl prescription from the defendant-pharmacy under false pretenses. The decedent and his friend later consumed the Fentanyl, which caused the decedent to overdose and die. The plaintiff filed claims against the defendant-pharmacy, alleging the pharmacy negligently allowed the decedent’s friend to pick up his mother’s Fentanyl prescription, which proximately caused the decedent’s overdose and death. 

The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment and argued that the plaintiff’s suit was barred by the in pari delicto doctrine, which is an equitable doctrine that precludes a plaintiff from recovering damages if his/her cause of action is based, at least partially, on his/her own illegal conduct. The trial court granted the motion for summary judgment and held that the decedent’s death was caused, at least partially, by his own criminal conduct (i.e. possessing and consuming a controlled substance that was not prescribed to him). 

On appeal, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania ruled that the trial court correctly applied the in pari delicto doctrine, as it was undisputed that the decedent committed a crime that directly caused his death when he possessed (and then ingested) a controlled substance that was not prescribed to him. The Supreme Court also rejected the plaintiff’s argument that the trial court erred in dismissing the case at the summary judgment stage, instead of allowing the jury to weigh the decedent’s comparative fault against that of the defendant and then apportion any damages accordingly. It ruled that the principles of comparative negligence differed from the doctrine of in pari delicto in that recovery was denied due to the decedent’s criminal conduct, not his contributory conduct. As such, the court held that the trial court’s ruling did not conflict with comparative negligence concepts. The court also noted that while its ruling may seem harsh, it was important to uphold the principles and purposes of the in pari delicto doctrine, which is to prevent fraud and illegality. 
 

^{Case Law Alerts, 1st Quarter, April 2022 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin 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 © 2022 Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.}