The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2008-4892 Civil KERI L. [HAUSLYAK] : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CASCARINO, : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff : : CIVIL ACTION—LAW v. : : ANNE L. MORLOCK, : Defendant : NO. 08-4892 CIVIL TERM IN RE: PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT BEFORE HESS, OLER and GUIDO, JJ. OPINION and ORDER OF COURT OLER, J., September 16, 2009. The present negligence action arises out of a two-vehicle accident at an 1 intersection which was allegedly caused by Defendant’s negligence. For disposition at this time is Plaintiff’s motion to amend her complaint with respect to 2 damage to her vehicle. Defendant has opposed the motion on the ground that the amendment would introduce a new cause of action against Plaintiff as to which the statute of 3 limitations has run. This matter was the subject of an oral argument on September 9, 2009. For the reasons stated in this opinion, Plaintiff’s motion to amend will be granted. STATEMENT OF FACTS This action was commenced by Plaintiff against Defendant by the filing of 4 a praecipe for writ of summons on August 14, 2008. Plaintiff’s complaint was 5 filed on January 2, 2009. 1 Plaintiff’s Complaint, filed January 2, 2009. 2 Plaintiff’s Motion for Court Approval To File Amended Complaint, filed March 6, 2009. 3 Answer and New Matter of Defendant, Anne L. Morlock, to Plaintiff’s Motion for Court Approval To File Amended Complaint, filed March 10, 2009; Defendant’s Brief in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave To Amend Her Complaint, submitted September 4, 2009. 4 Plaintiff’s Praecipe for Writ of Summons, filed August 14, 2008. The complaint alleged that on September 18, 2006, Plaintiff and Defendant were involved in a two-vehicle accident in Camp Hill, Cumberland County, 6 Pennsylvania, which was caused by Defendant’s failure to stop for a red light. The complaint expressly asserted that Defendant’s negligence caused (1) serious 7 damage to Plaintiff’s vehicle, (2) various physical and psychological injuries to 8 Plaintiff, and (3) “as a further result of Defendant[’s] negligence” damages to Plaintiff in the form of pain and suffering, unreimbursed medical expenses, loss of wages and earning capacity, loss of the enjoyment of life, and scarring and 9 disfigurement. Plaintiff’s wherefore clause simply “demand[ed] judgment against Defendant Anne L. Morlock in an amount in excess of this county’s mandatory arbitration limits, plus the costs of this action, and any other relief that this 10 Honorable Court deems just and proper.” On March 6, 2009, Plaintiff filed the motion sub judice to amend her complaint “to make an allegation concerning property damage involving her 11 automobile.” Unfortunately, a copy of the proposed amended complaint was not attached to the motion. Defendant has opposed the motion to amend on the ground that it would add a time-barred claim for property damage to Plaintiff’s action for 12 personal injury. 5 Plaintiff’s Complaint, filed January 2, 2009. 6 Plaintiff’s Complaint, ¶8, filed January 2, 2009. 7 Plaintiff’s Complaint, ¶8, filed January 2, 2009. 8 Plaintiff’s Complaint, ¶10, filed January 2, 2009. 9 Plaintiff’s Complaint, ¶11, filed January 2, 2009 (emphasis added). 10 Plaintiff’s Complaint, wherefore clause, filed January 2, 2009. 11 Plaintiff’s Motion for Court Approval To File Amended Complaint, ¶4, filed March 6, 2009. 12 Answer and New Matter of Defendant, Anne L. Morlock, to Plaintiff’s Motion for Court Approval To File Amended Complaint, filed March 10, 2009; Defendant’s Brief in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave To Amend Her Complaint, submitted September 4, 2009. 2 DISCUSSION Statement of law. As a general rule, amendments to pleadings are to be 13 liberally allowed. In addition, Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 126 states that [t]he rules [of civil procedure] shall be liberally construed to secure the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every action or proceeding to which they are applicable. The court at every stage of any such action or proceeding may disregard any error or defect of procedure which does not affect the substantial rights of the parties. Notwithstanding these liberal principles, amendments to pleadings that occur after the statute of limitations has run its course may not introduce a new cause of action. Kuisis v. Baldwin-Lima-Hamilton Corp., 457 Pa. 321, 329, 319 A.2d 914, 918 (1974). However, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has made it clear that [a] new cause of action does not exist if plaintiff’s amendment merely adds to or amplifies the original complaint or if the original complaint states a cause of action showing that the plaintiff has a legal right to recover what is claimed in the subsequent complaint. Junk v. East End Fire Dept., 262 Pa. Super. 473, 490, 396 A.2d 1269, 1277 (1978) (citations omitted). Under Section 5524 of the Judicial Code, the statute of limitations on a negligence claim for property damage arising out of a motor vehicle accident is 14 two years. Application of law to facts. In the present case, Plaintiff’s motion to amend her complaint “to make an allegation concerning property damage involving her vehicle” was filed more than two years after the accident in question. However, Plaintiff’s original complaint expressly alleged that Defendant’s negligence had caused damage to Plaintiff’s vehicle, as well as personal injuries to Plaintiff. 13 Hoare v. Bell Telephone Co. of Pa., 509 Pa. 57, 60, 500 A.2d 1112, 1114 (1985). 14 Act of July 9, 1976, P.L. 586, §2, as amended, 42 Pa. C.S. §5524 (2009 Supp.). 3 Under these circumstances, Plaintiff’s motion to amend is more akin to a request 15 to amplify a stated claim than to a request to state a new claim. Accordingly, the following order will be entered: ORDER OF COURT th AND NOW, this 16 day of September, 2009, upon consideration of Plaintiff’s Motion for Court Approval To File Amended Complaint, and for the reasons stated in the accompanying opinion, the motion is granted and Plaintiff is granted leave to file a more specific pleading with respect to damage to her vehicle allegedly caused by Defendant’s negligence. BY THE COURT, s/ J. Wesley Oler, Jr. J. Wesley Oler, Jr., J. C. Lee Anderson, Esq. SMIGEL, ANDERSON & SACKS 4431 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 Attorney for Plaintiff 15 In this regard, the present case is distinguishable from Hogden v. Summers, 382 Pa. Super. 348, 555 A.2d 214 (1989), wherein the Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed a trial court’s refusal to permit a plaintiff to amend her personal injury complaint to initiate a claim for property damage to her vehicle after the statute of limitations had run. 4 B. Craig Black, Esq. Patricia Haas Corll, Esq. John R. Canavan, Esq. The Chartwell Law Offices 1017 Mumma Road Suite 300 Wormleysburg, PA 17043 Attorneys for Defendant 5 6 KERI L. [HAUSLYAK] : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CASCARINO, : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff : : CIVIL ACTION—LAW v. : : ANNE L. MORLOCK, : Defendant : NO. 08-4892 CIVIL TERM IN RE: PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT BEFORE HESS, OLER and GUIDO, JJ. ORDER OF COURT th AND NOW, this 16 day of September, 2009, upon consideration of Plaintiff’s Motion for Court Approval To File Amended Complaint, and for the reasons stated in the accompanying opinion, the motion is granted and Plaintiff is granted leave to file a more specific pleading with respect to damage to her vehicle allegedly caused by Defendant’s negligence. BY THE COURT, _________________ J. Wesley Oler, Jr., J. C. Lee Anderson, Esq. SMIGEL, ANDERSON & SACKS 4431 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 Attorney for Plaintiff B. Craig Black, Esq. Patricia Haas Corll, Esq. John R. Canavan, Esq. The Chartwell Law Offices 1017 Mumma Road Suite 300 Wormleysburg, PA 17043 Attorneys for Defendant