for outrageous conduct, that is, for acts done with a bad motive or with a reckless indifference to the interests of others.” Id. at 495, 587 A.2d at 705. (emphasis in original) We hold that the plaintiffs have adduced sufficient evidence of Tolino’s conduct in order to create a jury question on the issue of punitive damages. The determination of whether a person’s actions arise to outrageous conduct lies within the sound discretion of the fact-finder. See id. As set forth above, the evidence viewed in the required light would permit a jury to conclude that by Tolino’s own admission, he chased the Mowad vehicle at speeds at least double the posted speed limit, while following the Mowad vehicle at an unsafe distance. Lewis v. Miller, 374 Pa. Super. 515, 521, 543 A.2d 590, 592 (1988) (<HOLDING>). His conscious decision to chase the Mowad
holding that a fiftyday delay to conduct an investigation was reasonable as a matter of law holding that a court may conduct a fair use analysis as a matter of law where the facts are presumed or admitted holding that the defendant did not establish good faith as a matter of law holding conduct was wanton as a matter of law for traveling 75 mph in a 45 mph zone while racing on a windy road holding that it may be decided as a matter of law