The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2008-7456 Civil KAREN A. HELM and : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF DENNIS L. HELM, : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs : : v. : CIVIL ACTION—LAW : NATHANIEL A. GROVE : and TIMOTHY P. : WILKINSON, : Defendants : No. 08-7456 CIVIL TERM IN RE: DEFENDANT WILKINSON’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT and DEFENDANT GROVE’S PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT BEFORE HESS, OLER and GUIDO, JJ. OPINION and ORDER OF COURT OLER, J., September 17, 2009. In this negligence case arising out of a three-vehicle accident, the operator 1 of one vehicle and her spouse have sued the drivers of the other two vehicles. Plaintiffs’ complaint alleges that (a) a vehicle Plaintiff Karen A. Helm was operating was stopped at an intersection, (b) that a vehicle being operated by Defendant Wilkinson was stopped behind her, (c) that a vehicle being operated by Defendant Grove rear-ended Defendant Wilkinson’s vehicle, (d) that Defendant Wilkinson’s vehicle was pushed by the force of the collision into her vehicle, and 2 (e) that she suffered personal injury and vehicle damage as a result. Plaintiffs’ complaint contains no allegation of negligence against Defendant Wilkinson, nor does it contain a claim of any type on behalf of Ms. Helm’s 3 spouse, Plaintiff Dennis L. Helm. For disposition at this time are a motion for 4 judgment on the pleadings filed by Defendant Wilkinson and preliminary 1 Plaintiff’s Complaint, filed May 27, 2009. 2 Plaintiff’s Complaint, filed May 27, 2009. 3 See Plaintiff’s Complaint, filed May 27, 2009. 4 Defendant, Timothy P. Wilkinson’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, filed August 13, 2009. 5 objections to Plaintiffs’ complaint filed by Defendant Grove. The former is based 6 upon the lack of an allegation of negligence on the part of Defendant Wilkinson. The latter requests that the court (a) strike allegations in Plaintiffs’ complaint 7 characterizing the conduct of Defendant Grove as “reckless” or “wanton,” (b) 8 strike general allegations of statutory violations, (c) direct a more specific 9 pleading as to property damage, and (d) dismiss Plaintiff Dennis L. Helm from 10 the action. Oral argument on Defendants’ motions was held on September 9, 2009. At the argument, counsel indicated their agreement that the motion for judgment on the pleadings filed by Defendant Wilkinson should be granted and that the preliminary objection of Defendant Grove based upon the absence of a stated claim by Plaintiff Dennis L. Helm should be granted. In addition, counsel for Plaintiffs advised that the complaint was not seeking punitive damages, thereby mooting the preliminary objection of Defendant Grove relating to allegations of reckless and wanton conduct. For the reasons stated in this opinion, the remaining preliminary objections of Defendant Grove will be denied. STATEMENT OF FACTS The general allegations of Plaintiffs’ complaint have been summarized above. With specific reference to negligence per se on the part of Defendant Grove, Plaintiffs’ complaint alleges the following: 5 Defendant’s Preliminary Objections to Plaintiffs’ Complaint, filed June 23, 2009. 6 Defendant, Timothy P. Wilkinson’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, ¶14, filed August 13, 2009. 7 Defendant’s Preliminary Objections to Plaintiffs’ Complaint, ¶¶8-11, filed June 23, 2009. 8 Defendant’s Preliminary Objections to Plaintiffs’ Complaint, ¶¶12-18, filed June 23, 2009. 9 Defendant’s Preliminary Objections to Plaintiffs’ Complaint, ¶¶19-22, filed June 23, 2009. 10 Defendant’s Preliminary Objections to Plaintiffs’ Complaint, ¶¶23-26, filed June 23, 2009. 2 46. Among the duties owed by Defendant Grove were those contained in relevant statutes within the Motor Vehicle Code of The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 75 Pa. C.S.A. §101. et seq. 47. Sections of the Motor Vehicle Code violated by Defendant Grove include but are not limited to the following: a. Section 3361, which required Defendant Grove to operate his vehicle at a safe and appropriate speed when approaching the intersection and in such a manner so as to be able to stop within the assured clear distance ahead; and b. Section 3714, which required Defendant Grove to otherwise drive his vehicle upon the highway in a manner so as to not endanger persons and property in a reckless manner with careless disregard to the rights and safety of 11 others. With specific reference to property damage, Plaintiffs’ complaint alleges the following: 44. Plaintiff Karen Helm also suffered property damage to her 12 vehicle, and claim is made therefor. DISCUSSION Pleading of statutes. With respect to the pleading of statutes, it is well settled that “[s]tatutes need not be specifically pleaded.” Sheffit v. Koff, 175 Pa. Super. 37, 39, 100 A.2d 393, 395 (1953). On the other hand, it is equally well settled that a “complaint must set forth sufficient facts to bring the case within the statute in question.” Id.; see Commonwealth, Department of Transportation v. Shipley Humble Oil Co., 29 Pa. Commw. 171, 370 A.2d 438 (1977). Accordingly, Defendant Grove’s preliminary objection requesting the court to strike Plaintiffs’ general allegation of statutory violations will be denied, with the proviso that any statutes determined to have been encompassed by the generality must have been implicated by the facts pled. Pleading of property damage. Under Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1019(f), it is provided that “[a]verments of time, place and items of special 11 Plaintiff’s Complaint, ¶¶46-47, filed May 27, 2009. 12 Plaintiffs’ Complaint, ¶44, filed May 27, 2009. 3 damage shall be specifically stated.” In this regard, the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court has stated: Damages are either general or special. General damages are those that are the usual and ordinary consequences of the wrong done. Special damages are those that are not the usual and ordinary consequences of the wrong done but which depend on special circumstances. General damages may be proven without specifically pleading them; however, special damages may not be proved unless special facts giving rise to them are averred. Hooker v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co., 880 A.2d 70, 77 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2005) (citations omitted). In a personal injury action arising out of a motor vehicle accident, damage to a vehicle titled to the plaintiff is, to say the least, not an invariable consequence of the event; accordingly, courts have generally regarded such a loss as an item of “special damage.” See, e.g., Templin v. Harbold, 210 Pa. Super. 310, 311 n.3, 231 A.2d 883, 884 n.3 (1967) (“Plaintiff’s claims for special damages include . . . $805 damage to his car); Scott v. Curtis, 200 Pa. Super. 44, 46, 186 A.2d 403, 404 (1962) (“[In this action of trespass for personal injuries, s]pecial damages, aside from vehicle damage and lost earnings, totaled $679”) (emphasis added); cf. Rosenblum v. United Natural Gas Co., 14 Pa. D. & C.2d 239 (Mercer Co. 1958) 13 (holding that, in general, property damages must be pled with particularity). “What constitutes sufficient particularity to adequately inform defendant of plaintiff’s claim is incapable of precise measurement, and is within the broad discretion of the trial court.” Becchetti v. PennDOT, 51 Pa. D. & C.4th 300, 305 (Lackawanna Co. 2001) (citation omitted). In the present case, Plaintiffs’ complaint has particularized the type of property damage claimed by limiting it to physical damage sustained as the result of the accident sub judice by the vehicle Plaintiff was operating. While Plaintiffs might be ordered to itemize each component of the vehicle damaged and to attach 13 Indeed, in a motor vehicle accident case sounding in negligence, a plaintiff’s cause of action for vehicle damage represents a claim distinct from his or her cause of action for personal injury. Hodgen v. Summers, 382 Pa. Super. 348, 555 A.2d 214 (1989). 4 to the complaint estimates for their repair, the court is of the view that in this case such detail can be relegated to the discovery process. For the foregoing reasons, the following order will be entered: ORDER OF COURT th AND NOW, this 17 day of September, 2009, upon consideration of “Defendant, Timothy P. Wilkinson’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings” and “Defendant’s Preliminary Objections to Plaintiffs’ Complaint” filed on behalf of Defendant Nathaniel A. Grove, and for the reasons stated in the accompanying opinion, it is ordered and directed as follows: 1. Defendant, Timothy P. Wilkinson’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is granted; 2. Defendant’s Preliminary Objections to Plaintiffs’ Complaint filed on behalf of Defendant Nathaniel A. Grove (a) are granted to the extent that Plaintiff Dennis L. Helm is dismissed from the case, (b) are deemed moot to the extent that they relate to allegations of reckless or wanton conduct on the part of Defendant Grove, and (c) are otherwise denied, with the proviso that any statutory violations relied upon in the case against Defendant Grove must be implicated by the facts pled in the complaint. BY THE COURT, s/ J. Wesley Oler, Jr. J. Wesley Oler, Jr., J. 5 Dennis E. Boyle, Esq. Joshua M. Autry, Esq. 4660 Trindle Road Suite 200 Camp Hill, PA 17011 Attorneys for Plaintiff Karen A. Helm Joseph F. Murphy, Esq. 2000 Linglestown Road Suite 301 Harrisburg, PA 17110 Attorney for Defendant Nathaniel L. Grove Gregory E. Cassimatis, Esq. 4999 Louise Drive Suite 103 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Attorney for Defendant Timothy P. Wilkinson 6 7 KAREN A. HELM and : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF DENNIS L. HELM, : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs : : v. : CIVIL ACTION—LAW : NATHANIEL A. GROVE : and TIMOTHY P. : WILKINSON, : Defendants : No. 08-7456 CIVIL TERM IN RE: DEFENDANT WILKINSON’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT and DEFENDANT GROVE’S PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT BEFORE HESS, OLER and GUIDO, JJ. ORDER OF COURT th AND NOW, this 17 day of September, 2009, upon consideration of “Defendant, Timothy P. Wilkinson’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings” and “Defendant’s Preliminary Objections to Plaintiffs’ Complaint” filed on behalf of Defendant Nathaniel A. Grove, and for the reasons stated in the accompanying opinion, it is ordered and directed as follows: 1. Defendant, Timothy P. Wilkinson’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is granted; 2. Defendant’s Preliminary Objections to Plaintiffs’ Complaint filed on behalf of Defendant Nathaniel A. Grove (a) are granted to the extent that Plaintiff Dennis L. Helm is dismissed from the case, (b) are deemed moot to the extent that they relate to allegations of reckless or wanton conduct on the part of Defendant Grove, and (c) are otherwise denied, with the proviso that any statutory violations relied upon in the case against Defendant Grove must be implicated by the facts pled in the complaint. 9 BY THE COURT, _________________ J. Wesley Oler, Jr., J. Dennis E. Boyle, Esq. Joshua M. Autry, Esq. 4660 Trindle Road Suite 200 Camp Hill, PA 17011 Attorneys for Plaintiff Karen A. Helm Joseph F. Murphy, Esq. 2000 Linglestown Road Suite 301 Harrisburg, PA 17110 Attorney for Defendant Nathaniel L. Grove Gregory E. Cassimatis, Esq. 4999 Louise Drive Suite 103 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Attorney for Defendant Timothy P. Wilkinson