Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout90-1098 CivilSCOTT ALLEN PETERS, Plaintiff V. JILL LOUISE GREGOR, GALE M. GREGOR and KARLENE K GREGOR, as natural guardians of JILL LOUISE GREGOR, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION -LAW : NO. 1098 CIVIL 1990 IN RE: DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS BEFORE BAYLEY and OLER JJ. ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 12A day of July, 1993, after careful consideration of Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, the Motion is DENIED. BY THE COURT, I - �, ,i , /"p) JZ / J . esley Oler, J J. I Harrison L. Sanders, Esq. Suite 601 18 South George Street York, PA 17401-1425 Attorney for Plaintiff Michael D. Pipa, Esq. 3401 North Front Street P.O. Box 5950 Harrisburg, PA 17110-0950 Attorney for Defendants :rc SCOTT ALLEN PETERS, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. CIVIL ACTION - LAW JILL LOUISE GREGOR, GALE M. GREGOR and KARLENE K GREGOR, as natural guardians of JILL LOUISE GREGOR, Defendant NO. 1098 CIVIL 1990 IN RE: DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS BEFORE BAYLEY and OLER. JJ. OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT Oler, J. For disposition in the present negligence case, arising out of a motor vehicle accident, is a motion for judgment on the pleadings filed by the defendant. For the reasons stated in this Opinion, the motion will be denied. PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND FACTS The Defendant is Jill Louise Gregor, a minor at the time of the accident and now an adult; her parents, Gale M. and Karlene K. Gregor, appear in the caption as her natural guardians.' The Plaintiff is Scott Allen Peters, an adult individual.' On March 23, 1988, an automobile driven by Defendant, Jill Louise Gregor, owned by her father Gale M. Gregor, and a motorcycle operated by Plaintiff were involved in a traffic accident on Williams Grove Road at the entrance to ' Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, paragraphs 2-3; Defendant's Answer with New Matter to Plaintiffs Amended Complaint, paragraphs 2-3. ' Plaintiffs Amended Complaint, paragraph 1; Defendant's Answer with New Matter to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, paragraph 1. No. 1098 Civil 1990 Mechanicsburg High School in Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania.' As a result of this accident, which allegedly was caused by the negligence of Ms. Gregor, Plaintiff asserts that he suffered various personal injuries.' In an action filed prior to the present action, on May 5, 1989, Gale M. Gregor sued the Plaintiff herein, Scott Allen Peters, in the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County to recover for property damage to the automobile driven by his daughter, Jill Louise Gregor, in the accident.' Plaintiff responded to this complaint by joining Jill Louise Gregor as an additional defendant, alleging that she was solely liable, liable over, or jointly and severally liable with respect to Gale M. Gregor's claim.' A settlement was reached in this action, and on November 14, 1990, a certificate of settlement was issued by the prothonotary.' Before that action was resolved, however, Scott Alan Peters commenced the present suit against Jill Louise Gregor, and against her parents individually, by filing a praecipe for a writ of summons on March 22, 1990. Plaintiff filed a complaint on ' Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, paragraph 4; Defendant's Answer with New Matter to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, paragraph 4. ' Plaintiffs Amended Complaint, paragraphs 10-12. s Gregor u. Peters, No. 1591 Civil 1989. See Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, Exhibit A. 6 Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, Exhibit B. ' Id., Exhibit C. 2 No. 1098 Civil 1990 October 1, 1990, contending that Jill Louise Gregor,' Gale M. Gregor, as the owner of the vehicle,' and Gale M. and Karlene K. Gregor, as the parents of Jill Louise Gregor,10 were liable for the personal injuries he suffered as the result of the motor vehicle accident with Jill Louise Gregor. Preliminary objections were filed to the complaint and an answer to the preliminary objections was filed by Plaintiff. On July 15, 1991, it was stipulated that Gale M. and Karlene K. Gregor would be removed from the suit as individual defendants." Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on July 25, 1991, deleting Gale M. and Karlene K. Gregor as individual defendants and asserting that the negligence of Defendant caused the injuries he suffered.12 On September 3, 1991, Defendant filed an answer to Plaintiff s amended complaint, with new matter that included the assertion that Plaintiff was barred from making a claim for personal injuries since he had failed to do so when he filed, in the previously instituted action, a joinder complaint against Ms. Gregor "to recover for the property damage to the [Plaintiffs] ' Plaintiffs Complaint, paragraph 10. s Id., paragraphs 16-17. to Id., paragraphs 21-22. 11 Stipulation of Counsel, paragraph 4, filed July 15, 1991. la Plaintiffs Amended Complaint, paragraph 10. 3 No. 1098 Civil 1990 motorcycle." 13 Plaintiff replied to Defendant's new matter on September 19, 1991, denying, among other things, that he had filed a claim against Defendant in the previous action for property damage to Plaintiff's motorcycle.14 He pointed out that the joinder complaint which he had filed against Defendant merely sought protection with respect to his own potential liability.16 On August 26, 1992, Defendant filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, contending that, pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1020(d)(1), when Plaintiff filed his joinder complaint in the prior action, he was required to join all of his claims that arose out of the accident of March 23, 1988, and that his failure to do so, pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1020(d)(4), resulted in a waiver of those claims not joined.18 DISCUSSION The issue before the Court is whether, on the basis of the pleadings, Plaintiff should be held barred as to his claim for personal injuries against Jill Louise Gregor, where (a) he had joined her as an additional defendant in a previously instituted third - l3 21. Defendant's Answer with New Matter to Plaintiff"s Amended Complaint, paragraphs 19, " Plaintifrs [Reply] to Defendant's New Matter, paragraph 19. 15 Id. is Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, paragraphs 10-12. 4 No. 1098 Civil 1990 party action for property damage, (b) the joinder complaint sought exoneration, indemnification or contribution only, (c) the previously instituted action terminated without an adjudication, by settlement and discontinuance, and (d) the discontinuance occurred while the present action remained pending. Several areas of law are relevant to this issue. Judgment on the pleadings. In ruling upon a motion for judgment on the pleadings, the Court must accept as true all of the opposing party's well -pleaded allegations and may grant the motion only "in cases which are so free from doubt that a trial would clearly be a fruitless exercise." Bata v. Central -Penn Nat'l Bank, 423 Pa. 373, 378, 224 A.2d 174, 178 (1966), cert. denied, 386 U.S. 1007, 87 S. Ct. 1348, 18 L. Ed. 2d. 433 (1967). The Court may consider only the pleadings in disposing of the motion. See Kroiz v. Blumenfeld, 229 Pa. Super. 194, 323 A.2d 339 (1974). Joinder of additional defendants. The right to join additional defendants is governed by Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 2252(a), which states that any defendant ... may join as an additional defendant any person, whether or not a party to the action, who may be (1) solely liable on the plaintiffs cause of action, or (2) liable over to the joining party with the plaintiffs cause of action, or (3) Jointly or severally liable with the joining party on the plaintiff's cause of action, or 5 No. 1098 Civil 1990 (4) liable to the joining party on any cause of action arising out of the transaction or occurrence or series of transactions or occurrences upon which the plaintiff s cause of action is based. In joining additional defendants, the procedure to be used is set forth in Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 2255(a): "The procedure, including pleadings, between the party joining an additional defendant and the additional defendant shall be the same as though the party joining the additional defendant were a plaintiff and the additional defendant were a defendant." Res judicata. Third -party procedures are intended to adjudicate all of the causes of action of the parties arising from the plaintiffs claim in one action. 7 Goodrich Amram 2d, §2255(a):4 (1992). Failure of a defendant to assert any rights of action against the additional defendant growing out of the plaintiff s claim for relief may, in certain circumstances, bar any later assertion of these rights because of a res judicata effect of a decision in the original action. Id. "This principle has been extended to require the joining party also to claim from the additional defendant, upon penalty of being barred from later asserting such a liability in a separate action, any other injuries he may have suffered arising out of the same facts and circumstances as the claim of the plaintiff against the original defendant." Id. at 203. An application of this effect of res judicata is found in the leading case of Simoedejka v. Williams, 360 Pa. 332, 62 A.2d 17 (1948). No. 1098 Civil 1990 However, it has been said that "[t]he bar [applied in Simoedejka] would not be applicable under any circumstances if the original action is not prosecuted to judgment." 7 Goodrich Amram §2255(a):4, at 205 (1992). "To call it into play there must be an adjudication of the rights of the joining party and additional defendant inter se. Settlement and discontinuance of the action before trial would not, therefore, bar the joining party from subsequently bringing an action against the additional defendant based on a claim not settled by the prior action." Id.; see Wachter v. Little, 12 Pa. D. & C.2d 305 (Westmoreland Co. 1956); Luizer v. Heigel, 88 Pa. D. & C. 378 (Lehigh Co. 1954); 3 Standard Pennsylvania Practice §14:204 (1981). In the present case, during the pendency of which another action, involving a third party as plaintiff and Plaintiff and Defendant herein as defendant and additional defendant respectively, was settled and discontinued, it can not be said that an adjudication of the rights of Plaintiff and Defendant inter se has been shown to have occurred. Without suggesting that under no circumstances can a settlement of such an action have a res judicata effect as between a defendant and additional defendant, we do not believe that the pleadings in this case will support such a result. Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1020(d). Defendant contends that the Plaintiff is nevertheless barred from asserting his personal injury claim herein by operation of the Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant maintains that under Rule 1020(d)(1) Plaintiff was required to assert all his claims, including the personal injury 7 No. 1098 Civil 1990 claim, arising out of the March 23, 1988, accident against Defendant when joining her as an additional defendant in the previously instituted action. Rule 1020(d)(1) reads as follows: If a transaction or occurrence gives rise to more than one cause of action against the same person, including causes of action in the alternative, they shall be joined in separate counts in the action against any such person. Defendant argues that under Rule 1020(d)(4) a waiver of the claim not joined was effected. Rule 1020(d)(4) provides as follows: Failure to join a cause of action as required by [Rule 1020(d)(1)] shall be deemed a waiver of that cause of action as against all parties to the action. The subsections of Rule 1020 relied upon by Plaintiff, which took their present forms in 1983,17 represent a compulsory joinder -of -related -causes -of -action provision and a waiver provision.18 Several factors, however, militate against concluding that Plaintiff s present claim is barred by their operation. First, no authority has been found for the proposition that a waiver would occur under the specific circumstances here extant. Typically, cases involving application of the bar contained in Rule 1020(d)(4) involve original plaintiffs and defendants. See, e.g., Hineline v. Stroudsburg Electric Supply Co., Inc., 402 Pa. Super. 178, 586 A.2d 17 See 501 Pa. cxii-iii, 468-69 Pa. Rep. lxv-vi (December 16, 1983). A history of these provisions is contained in Jones v. Keystone Insurance Co., 364 Pa. Super. 318, 528 A.2d 177 (1987) (Wieand, J.), allocatur denied, 518 Pa. 613, 540 A.2d 535 (1988). " See 2 Goodrich Amram 2d §§1020(d):1, 1020(d):5 (1991). No. 1098 Civil 1990 455, allocatur denied, 528 Pa. 630, 598 A.2d 284 (1991); Jones v. Keystone Ins. Co., 364 Pa. 318, 528 A.2d 177 (1987). Second, it is by no means clear that Rule 1020(d) was intended to extend the policy of Simoedejka to effect a bar in a case where the previously initiated action resulted in no adjudication and where the present action was pending when the other was resolved. Finally, an interpretation of Rule 1020(d) which would eliminate a plaintiffs personal injury suit on the basis of the settlement of a third -party action pending at the same time, in which plaintiff had joined defendant on a purely defensive basis, has a potential for unfairness in future cases. At best, such a result could be expected to come as a surprise to all parties to the settlement; at worst, the consequence would have been within the contemplation of its beneficiary alone. In this regard, it may be noted that a liberal construction of the Rules of Civil Procedure is favored "to secure the just ... determination of every action ....i". Without holding that under no circumstances may Rule 1020(d) be construed to preclude a claim by virtue of a failure to include it in a joinder complaint against an additional defendant in a previously instituted action by a third party, we do not believe that the pleadings in this case reveal that such a result is compelled here. For these reasons, the following Order will be entered: is Pa. R.C.P. 126. D No. 1098 Civil 1990 ORDER OF THE COURT AND NOW, on this day of July, 1993, after careful consideration of Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, the Motion is DENIED. Harrison L. Sanders, Esq. Suite 601 18 South George Street York, PA 17401-1425 Attorney for Plaintiff Michael D. Pipa, Esq. 3401 North Front Street P.O. Box 5950 Harrisburg, PA 17110-0950 Attorney for Defendants :rc BY THE COURT, s/ J. Wesley Oler. Jr. J. Wesley Oler, Jr. J. 10