The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About91-0396 CivilEDWARD V. CRINNION, JR. and NANCY J. CRINNION, his wife, Plaintiffs V. RICHARD J. WHITE, AMERICAN TRANS -FREIGHT INC., AMERICAN NATIONAL CARRIERS, INC., and COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Defendants V. ELDORADO PROPERTIES CORP., and ELDORADO PROPERTIES CORP. t/d/b/a SOCO TRUCK STOP and SCHNEIDER NATIONAL CARRIERS, Additional Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 396 CIVIL 1991 IN RE: PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS OF ADDITIONAL DEFENDANT SCHNEIDER NATIONAL CARRIERS BEFORE HOFFER and OLER. JJ. ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this,2 ,, � day of September, 1993, after careful consideration of Additional Defendant's preliminary objections, as well as the briefs and oral argument in this matter, the preliminary objections are DENIED. BY THE COURT, Wesley Oler, Jr J. Mary Jane Bowes, Esq. BURNS, WHITE & HICKTON 2400 Fifth Avenue Place 120 Fifth Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Counsel for Plaintiffs Randall G. Gale, Esq. THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER 305 North Front Street P.O. Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17108 Counsel for American National Carriers Eldorado Properties Corp., t/d/b/a Soco Truck Stop 900 Eisenhower Blvd. Harrisburg, PA 17111 Chester A. Dudzinski, Esq. CIPRIANI & WERNER 2500 Two Oliver Plaza Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Attorney for American Trans -Freight, Inc. Gerhard Schwaibold, Esq. Deputy Attorney General Torts Litigation Unit Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Transportation 15th Floor, Strawberry Square Harrisburg, PA 17120 Bernard J. McAuley, Esq. WAYMAN, IRVIN & McAULEY Suite 1624 Frick Building Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Attorney for Schneider National Carriers :rc EDWARD V. CRINNION, JR. and IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF NANCY J. CRINNION, his wife, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs V. RICHARD J. WHITE, AMERICAN TRANS -FREIGHT INC., AMERICAN NATIONAL CARRIERS, CIVIL ACTION - LAW INC., and COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Defendants em ELDORADO PROPERTIES CORP., and ELDORADO PROPERTIES CORP. t/d/b/a SOCO TRUCK STOP and SCHNEIDER NATIONAL CARRIERS, Additional Defendants NO. 396 CIVIL 1991 IN RE: PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS OF ADDITIONAL DEFENDANT SCHNEIDER NATIONAL CARRIERS BEFORE HOFFER and OLER. JJ. OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT Oler, J. At issue in the present civil action are preliminary objections filed by Schneider National Carriers (Additional Defendant) to a complaint to join additional defendants filed by American Trans -Freight, Inc. (Defendant). Additional Defendant contends that the joinder is unduly prejudicial to Additional Defendant since it comes at a late date,' after extensive discovery by other parties has taken place, and that the joinder 1 The accident giving rise to this action allegedly occurred in 1989. See text accompanying note 4 infra. Plaintiffs' original complaint was filed on February 4, 1991. An amended complaint was filed on October 11, 1991, and a second amended complaint was filed on April 1, 1993. Defendant's praecipe for joinder of additional defendants was filed on April 19, 1993, and the joinder complaint was filed on June 28, 1993. No. 396 Civil 1991 complaint should therefore be dismissed.' One of the premises in support of Additional Defendant's position — namely, that the filing of the second amended complaint by Plaintiffs, which facilitated the joinder, was collusive — has been withdrawn by Additional Defendant's counsel.' For the reasons set forth in this Opinion, Additional Defendant's preliminary objections must be denied. This case arises out of a motor vehicle accident which allegedly occurred on September 19, 1989, on U.S. Route 11 in Middlesex Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, between a van driven by Edward V. Crinnion, Jr. (Plaintiff -husband) and a tractor -trailer driven by Richard J. White (Co-defendant), which was owned by and operated with the consent of Defendant.' Plaintiffs filed their original complaint on February 4, 1991, seeking damages resulting from injuries to Plaintiff -husband in the accident.' The present dispute follows the filing of Plaintiffs' second amended complaint on April 1, 1993, after which Defendant filed a praecipe for joinder of additional defendants on April 19, 1993, and a complaint to join additional defendants on June ' Additional Defendant's Preliminary Objections, paragraph 16. 3 Oral Argument, August 11, 1993. 4 Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint, Count III; Defendant's Complaint To Join Additional Defendants, paragraphs 4, 12; Additional Defendant's Preliminary Objections, paragraphs 1, 2. 5 See generally Plaintiffs' Complaint. 2 No. 396 Civil 1991 28, 1993. Defendant alleges in its joinder complaint that the driver of a truck operated on behalf of Additional Defendant caused or contributed to Plaintiff -husband's alleged injuries.' It is contended that Additional Defendant is solely liable or jointly and severally liable to Plaintiffs, or liable over to Defendant on Plaintiffs' claim.' Additional Defendant objects to its joinder on the basis of prejudicial delay.' Joinder of additional defendants is provided for in Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 2252. "[A]ny defendant ... may join as an additional defendant any person ... who may be (1) solely liable on the plaintiff's cause of action, or (2) liable over to the joining party on the plaintiff's cause of action, or (3) jointly or severally liable with the joining party on the plaintiff s cause of action, or (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 addition, Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 2253 provides that a praecipe for a writ to join an additional defendant ... shall be filed by the original defendant... no later than sixty days after the service upon the original defendant of the initial pleading of the plaintiff or any amendment thereof unless such filing is allowed by the court upon cause shown. "[J]oinder of additional parties is a matter of right, provided the complaint or s Defendant's Complaint To Join Additional Defendants, paragraphs 12-19. Defendant's Complaint To Join Additional Defendants, paragraph 21. 8 Additional Defendant's Preliminary Objections, paragraph 16. No. 396 Civil 1991 praecipe for a writ to join the additional defendant is filed within 60 days after the original defendant has been served with a copy of the plaintiffs complaint." 7 Goodrich Amram 2d §2252(a):2, at 133 (1992). As a general rule, a writ under these circumstances must issue as a matter of course and cannot be refused on any ground. Id. Additionally, "any amendment of the plaintiffs pleadings entitles the defendant to a new period of 60 days thereafter in which to initiate the joinder." 7 Goodrich Amram 2d §2253:(3), at 180 (1992). See Stauffer v. Sutton, 17 D. & C.2d 26 (Lehigh Co. 1958). This new period has been said to apply regardless of the materiality of the amendment. Id. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has noted that the sixty-day period for joining additional defendants is "unrestricted." Zakian v. Liljestrand, 438 Pa. 249, 256, 264 A.2d 638, 641 (1970). In Zakian, the Court observed that the purpose of the joinder rules is to "simplify and expedite the disposition of matters involving numerous parties" and to avoid subjecting a plaintiff to unreasonable delays in the resolution of his or her litigation. Id. Since Defendant filed a praecipe to join Additional Defendant within sixty days of the filing of Plaintiffs' second amended complaint, and since Additional Defendant's counsel has withdrawn any contention that there was collusion between Plaintiffs and Defendant to amend the complaint for the purpose of facilitating the joinder of Additional Defendant, we hold that Additional Defendant was properly joined pursuant 4 No. 396 Civil 1991 to Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure 2252 and 2253. The cases cited by Additional Defendant in support of its objection are not apposite, because they involve either an attempted joinder beyond the 60 -day period, requiring court approval, or a collusive amendment of the plaintiffs complaint. See Zakian v. Liljestrand, 438 Pa. 249, 264 A.2d 638 (1970); Prime Properties Development Corp. v. Binns, 397 Pa. Super. 492, 580 A.2d 405 (1990); Kavalesky v. Esther Williams Swimming Pools, 345 Pa. Super. 95, 497 A.2d 661 (1985); Welch Foods, Inc. v. Bishopric Products Co., 254 Pa. Super. 256, 385 A.2d 1007 (1978); Biello v. Bryant, 203 Pa. Super. 175, 199 A.2d 506 (1964). For these reasons, the following order will be entered: ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, thisday of September, 1993, after careful consideration of Additional Defendant's preliminary objections, as well as the briefs and oral argument in this matter, the preliminary objections are DENIED. Mary Jane Bowes, Esq. BURNS, WHITE & HICKTON 2400 Fifth Avenue Place 120 Fifth Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Counsel for Plaintiffs BY THE COURT, J. VVesley Oler, Ji . J. 6_! No. 396 Civil 1991 Randall G. Gale, Esq. THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER 305 North Front Street P.O. Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17108 Counsel for American National Carriers Eldorado Properties Corp., t/d/b/a Soco Truck Stop 900 Eisenhower Blvd. Harrisburg, PA 17111 Chester A. Dudzinski, Esq. CIPRIANI & WERNER 2500 Two Oliver Plaza Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Attorney for American Trans -Freight, Inc. Gerhard Schwaibold, Esq. Deputy Attorney General Torts Litigation Unit Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Transportation 15th Floor, Strawberry Square Harrisburg, PA 17120 Bernard J. McAuley, Esq. WAYMAN, IRVIN & McAULEY Suite 1624 Frick Building Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Attorney for Schneider National Carriers :rc