Defendant's preliminary objections sustained dismissing plaintiff's claim where plaintiff failed to specify the order of vehicles positioned in a multi-vehicle chain reaction.
The plaintiffs' complaint, which arose out of a multi-vehicle chain reaction automobile accident, was inadequate where it failed to specify the order in which the vehicles involved in the accident were positioned and whether the vehicles were static or in motion. As a result, the defendant's preliminary objections were sustained.
A multi-vehicle, chain reaction automobile accident occurred on New Butler Road in Shenango Township. Allegedly, driver Michael Lowry diverted his attention from the roadway and struck the vehicle immediately in front of his, starting a chain reaction. Plaintiffs Anita and Eugene Tomsky, individually and as administrator of the estate of decedent Eugene Tomsky, brought this action after the accident.
The plaintiffs' amended complaint stated only that Lowry's vehicle was at the end of the chain. The Tomskys alleged that the other three vehicles, one driven by the plaintiffs and the other two driven by defendants Hochendoner and Francis, were positioned somewhere in front of Lowry's vehicle. However, the plaintiffs failed to plead the specific location of the vehicles in the accident or which vehicle was initially struck by Lowry's vehicle. According to the defendants, the amended complaint violated the specificity requirements of Pa.R.Civ.P. 1019 in that the plaintiffs intentionally pled vaguely in regard to the actual facts of the alleged accident. The defendants objected to the plaintiffs' failure to specify the order in which the vehicles involved in the accident were positioned and whether the vehicles were static or in motion. According to the defendants, such factual knowledge was readily available to the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs purposefully excluded these facts so as to avoid any potential motions for judgment on the pleadings.
The court agreed with the defendants, noting that the positioning of the vehicles involved in such a chain reaction accident, and whether the vehicles were moving or static, were essential components of the plaintiffs' case. The complaint did not contain any facts from which the court could determine the order of the vehicles and their movement. The court also agreed with the defendants that the plaintiffs had pled insufficient general averments of negligence and/or statutory violations in contravention of the holding in Connor v. Allegheny General Hospital, 461 A.2d 600 (Pa. 1983). As such, the court sustained the defendants' preliminary objections but granted the plaintiffs' leave to amend.
Case Law Alert, 1st Qtr 2012