The Underlying Facts
Cody Albert (“Cody”) reconnected with his old childhood friend, Zachary Ross (“Zachary”). Cody drove Zachary to Sheeley’s Drug Store (“Sheeley’s”), where Zachary successfully picked up medication for his mother even though, according to Zachary, the pharmacy receipt explicitly stated, “[d]o not give to son.” The two then went to a nearby Sheetz, where they unsuccessfully tried to purchase drugs from Cody’s friend. On the drive back to Zachary’s house, Zachary punctured one of the fentanyl patches with a knife and consumed some of the drug. After arriving at Zachary’s house, Cody at some point consumed fentanyl from one of the patches, smoked marijuana, and then fell asleep on the couch. Later that night, Zachary tried to wake Cody up, but he was unresponsive. Cody was later pronounced dead at a hospital. Zachary eventually pleaded guilty to involuntary manslaughter and multiple drug offenses in connection with Cody’s overdose.
Cody’s father, Dale Albert (“Albert”), filed a negligence suit against Sheeley’s—both individually and on behalf of his son’s estate—in which he sought wrongful death and survival damages. Albert’s complaint alleged that Sheeley’s negligently allowed Zachary to pick up his mother’s fentanyl prescription, which proximately caused Cody’s overdose and death. Sheeley’s sought summary judgment, arguing that Albert’s suit is barred by the wrongful conduct rule, otherwise known as the in pari delicto doctrine.
The trial court entered judgment for Sheeley’s, concluding that the in pari delicto doctrine bars recovery given that Cody’s death was caused, at least partially, by his own criminal conduct: possessing and consuming a controlled substance that was not prescribed to him. Albert then appealed.
In Pari Delicto Doctrine
In pari delicto (“in equal fault”) is an equitable doctrine that precludes plaintiffs from recovering damages if their cause of action is based, at least partially, on their own illegal conduct. Pennsylvania law does not allow recovery when an action is grounded in illegal behavior. The rule is rooted in the theory that courts should not lend their aid to a plaintiff whose cause of action stems from his or her own illegal conduct. In Pennsylvania, as elsewhere, in pari delicto serves the public interest by relieving courts from lending their offices to mediating disputes among wrongdoers, as well as by deterring illegal conduct.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court stated: “the trial court correctly applied the in pari delicto doctrine because it is undisputed that Cody committed a crime that directly caused his death when he possessed (and then ingested) a controlled substance that was not prescribed to him … Under Pennsylvania’s formulation of in pari delicto, courts must consider: (1) the extent of the plaintiff’s wrongdoing vis-à-vis the defendant; and (2) the connection between the plaintiff’s wrongdoing and the claims asserted … With regard to the former, we have said that the plaintiff must bear “substantially equal or greater responsibility” for the underlying harm as compared to the defendant … And, as for the latter, the plaintiff’s cause of action must directly arise from or be “grounded upon” an illegal act.”
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court stated: “Cody’s criminal conduct directly resulted in his death, while Sheeley’s conduct—dispensing a controlled substance to Cody’s friend—is several links removed in the chain of causation … Albert misunderstands the relationship between comparative negligence and in pari delicto. Comparative negligence principles apply whenever a plaintiff is contributorily negligent, while in pari delicto applies whenever a plaintiff engages in criminal conduct that directly causes the harm for which he or she seeks redress. As we have explained in the past, in pari delicto “retain[s] relevance” in “cases involving intentional wrongdoing on the part of a plaintiff” despite Pennsylvania’s comparative negligence and contribution statutes.””
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court held: “While the result here may seem harsh, this lawsuit—where a plaintiff seeks recovery for injuries caused by his own criminal act—falls squarely within the in pari delicto doctrine … the purpose of the in pari delicto doctrine is not to punish Albert or reward Sheeley’s. The rule exists principally because holding otherwise would force courts to condone and perhaps even encourage criminal conduct, thus diminishing the public’s perception of the legal system. Litigants should be well aware that “the judiciary is not tolerant of fraud and illegality, and those who come before it seeking common-law redress relative to matters in which they bear sufficient culpability may suffer disadvantage as a consequence of their own wrongdoing” … We affirm.”
Source Albert v. Sheeley’s Drug Store, Inc., J-38-2021.
If you or a loved one suffered harm due to pharmacy negligence in Pennsylvania or in another U.S. state, you should promptly find a Pennsylvania medical malpractice lawyer or a medical malpractice lawyer in your state who may investigate your pharmacy negligence claim for you and represent you or your loved one in a pharmacy malpractice case, if appropriate.
Click on the “Contact Us Now” tab to the right, visit our website, or call us toll-free in the United States at 800-295-3959 to find medical malpractice attorneys in your state who may assist you.
Turn to us when you don’t know where to turn.