Summary
declining to join two causes of actions that arose from two separate car accidents occurring within minutes of each other and causing similar injuries to the plaintiff
Summary of this case from Amspacher v. Bldg. Sys. Transp. Co.Opinion
March 17, 1966.
April 19, 1966.
Practice — Parties — Joinder — Additional defendant — Identity of cause of action declared upon by plaintiff — Pa. R. C. P. 2252.
1. In this appeal in which it appeared that plaintiff sued A to recover damages she suffered when his automobile left the highway while she was a passenger in it, and separately sued B to recover additional damages she suffered when his automobile collided with A's vehicle in which plaintiff was still seated; and A sought to join B as an additional defendant in the action against A, it was Held that such Joinder could not be permitted.
2. Under Pa. R. C. P. 2252(a) (which provides that in any action the defendant may join as an additional defendant any person not a party to the action who may be alone liable or liable over to him on the cause of action declared upon) the cause of action as to which the original defendant may bring in an additional defendant must still be the cause of action declared on by the plaintiff in the action against the original defendant. [156]
Before MUSMANNO, JONES, COHEN, EAGEN, O'BRIEN and ROBERTS, JJ.
Appeal, No. 69, March T., 1966, from order of Court of Common Pleas of Beaver County, Dec. T., 1963, No. 134, in case of Joan Rodich v. Milo E. Rodich and Daniel Rodich. Order affirmed.
Trespass for personal injuries.
Additional defendant's preliminary objections to joinder sustained, order by SOHN, P. J. Defendant appealed.
Harold F. Reed, Jr., with him Robert L. Orr, and Reed, Orr Reed, for appellant.
Lee E. Whitmire, Jr., with him Whitmire Mannix, for appellee.
Joan Rodich was a passenger in a vehicle operated by her brother, Milo Rodich. The vehicle went off the highway and collided with a tree and Joan suffered personal injuries. She filed an action of trespass against Milo.
Daniel Rodich, a brother of Joan and Milo, went to the scene of the accident and the vehicle which he was driving failed to make the same curve which Milo had failed to turn, resulting in Daniel's vehicle leaving the highway and striking the vehicle of Milo, in which Joan was still seated. Joan filed a second action of trespass, this one against Daniel, to recover damages resulting from the collision between Daniel's vehicle and
The opinion of the court below indicates that the striking of Milo's vehicle by Daniel's occurred some 40 minutes after Milo's vehicle struck the tree. From the record before us, we cannot determine what the time interval was, but it is clear that the collision between the two vehicles occurred subsequent to the collision between Milo's vehicle and the tree.
Milo filed a complaint, seeking to join Daniel as an additional defendant in the action of Joan against Milo. Daniel, filed preliminary objections to the complaint, seeking to join him as an additional defendant, and the court below sustained the preliminary objections and dismissed the additional party complaint on the ground that the attempted joinder constituted a misjoinder of causes of action. The court, at the same time, ordered the two separate trespass actions of Joan v. Milo and Joan v. Daniel to be consolidated for trial before the same jury. Milo appeals from the order of the court below, sustaining Daniel's preliminary objections and dismissing Milo's additional defendant complaint against Daniel.
The court below acted properly in sustaining the preliminary objections. Pa. R. C. P. 2252 permits the joinder of a person not a party to the action where he may alone be liable or liable over on the cause of action declared upon in the original suit. In the instant case, two separate incidents occurred and two separate actions are pending for the resolution of the issues arising from the two separate occurrences. Each of the separate defendants should be responsible for damages which resulted from his negligence, if any.
The causes of action sought to be joined are separate and unrelated and, as such, may not be joined. Altoona Cen. B. T. Co. v. Am. Cas. Co., 415 Pa. 39, 202 A.2d 29 (1964); Steele v. Sheppard, 402 Pa. 33, 165 A.2d 666 (1960).
Order affirmed.