Find Laws Find Lawyers Free Legal Forms USA State Laws
Laws-info.com » Cases » Pennsylvania » Supreme Court » 2009 » Piehl, et ux v. Commonwealth, Aplt (Majority Opinion)
Piehl, et ux v. Commonwealth, Aplt (Majority Opinion)
State: Pennsylvania
Court: Supreme Court
Docket No: 5 EAP 2008
Case Date: 12/28/2009
Plaintiff: Piehl, et ux
Defendant: Commonwealth, Aplt (Majority Opinion)
Preview:[J-151-2008] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN DISTRICT CASTILLE, C.J., SAYLOR, EAKIN, BAER, TODD, McCAFFERY, GREENSPAN, JJ.

LINDA PIEHL AND WILLIAM PIEHL, HUSBAND AND WIFE

: : : v. : : : CITY OF PHILADELPHIA AND : COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : : : : APPEAL OF: COMMONWEALTH OF : PENNSYLVANIA :

No. 5 EAP 2008 Appeal from the Order of the Commonwealth Court entered July 27, 2007 at No. 368 C.D. 2006 Reversing and Remanding the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Civil Division, at No. 318 March Term 2005 930 A.2d 607 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007) ARGUED: October 22, 2008

OPINION MR. JUSTICE BAER DECIDED: December 28, 2009

We granted allowance of appeal in this case to determine whether the Commonwealth Court erred by reversing the trial court and concluding that it should have permitted the Appellees, Linda and William Piehl (hereinafter "Piehls"), plaintiffs below, to amend the caption to their complaint alleging negligence against the City of Philadelphia and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania after the statute of limitations had expired to include the Department of Transportation where, in the caption, the complaint named only the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania generally as a defendant, but where, in the body of the complaint, the Department of Transportation (hereinafter "DOT") was named as a defendant. For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the Commonwealth Court

properly allowed Piehls to amend the caption to their complaint to include DOT as a defendant in the case. The facts are as follows. On March 8, 2005, Piehls commenced the present action by filing a complaint in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County. The caption of the complaint named the City of Philadelphia and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania as defendants.1 Next to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, in the caption, Piehls indicated its address as follows: "1400 Spring Garden Street, Philadelphia, PA 19130." The body of the complaint, in paragraph 4, indicated as follows: 4. Defendant, Department of Transportation of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, (hereinafter referred to as "Defendant Commonwealth") is a governmental agency with a principal place of business at 1400 Spring Garden Street, Philadelphia, PA 19130. March, 8, 2005 Complaint at
Download j-151-2009mo.pdf

Pennsylvania Law

Pennsylvania State Laws
Pennsylvania Tax
Pennsylvania Labor Laws
Pennsylvania State
Pennsylvania Agencies
    > Pennsylvania Secretary of State

Comments

Tips