Piehl, et ux v. Commonwealth, Aplt (Dissenting Opinion)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

[J-151-2008] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN DISTRICT LINDA PIEHL AND WILLIAM PIEHL, H/W, : : Appellees : : : v. : : : CITY OF PHILADELPHIA AND : COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : : APPEAL OF: COMMONWEALTH OF : PENNSYLVANIA : Appellant : 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 DISSENTING OPINION MR. JUSTICE EAKIN DECIDED: December 28, 2009 I would adopt the learned Judge Simpson s dissenting opinion from the Commonwealth Court s disposition of this matter. See Piehl v. City of Philadelphia, 930 A.2d 607 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007) (Simpson, J., dissenting). The plaintiff has the burden of placing the proper party on notice it is being sued. See Pa.R.C.P. 1018 ( [t]he caption of a complaint shall set forth the form of the action and the names of all the parties ¦. ). Naming only the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in the caption failed to put the Department of Transportation on notice it was the party actually being sued. The fact that the Department of Transportation was served does nothing to cure the plaintiffs basic failing, as an entity should not be required to dissect original process to determine if it may be a party. Piehl, at 618 (Simpson, J., dissenting). Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.