Burns v. BALTIMORE MOTOR COACH COMPANY

• Decision Date: 14 August 1969
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 69-376.
• Citation: 302 F. Supp. 683
• Parties: John J. BURNS, Jr. and Harry E. Weber v. BALTIMORE MOTOR COACH COMPANY.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania

302 F. Supp. 683

John J. BURNS, Jr. and Harry E. Weber v. BALTIMORE MOTOR COACH COMPANY.

Civ. A. No. 69-376.

United States District Court E. D. Pennsylvania.

August 14, 1969.

Klinger, Heller & Simone, Philadelphia, Pa., for plaintiffs.

Thomas O. Malcolm, Philadelphia, Pa., for defendant.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

TROUTMAN, District Judge.

This is an action for personal injuries arising out of a motor vehicle accident which occurred on the Baltimore-Washington Expressway in the State of Maryland. The plaintiffs were passengers in a bus involved in the accident which was owned and operated by the defendant. Presently before the Court is the defendant's motion to quash service of process.

Service of process was made on the defendant through the Secretary of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania pursuant to the provision of 15 P.S. § 2011 which provides for such service on "any foreign business corporation which shall have done any business in this Commonwealth * * *" (subsection B) as follows (subsection C):

"For the purposes of determining jurisdictions of courts within this Commonwealth, the doing by any corporation in this Commonwealth of a series of similar acts for the purpose of thereby realizing pecuniary benefit or otherwise accomplishing an object, or doing a single act in this Commonwealth for such purpose, with the intention of thereby initiating a series of such acts, shall constitute `doing business'. For the purposes of this subsection the shipping of merchandise directly or indirectly into or through this Commonwealth shall be considered the doing of such an act in this Commonwealth."

In support of its motion to quash it is contended by the defendant that it is a corporation existing under the laws of the State of Maryland, that it is not doing business in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and that it is not subject to service of process in this district.¹

The deposition testimony of the General Manager of the defendant, which has been filed and made a part of this record, indicates that the defendant is a Maryland corporation engaged in the bussing business. Its entire operation consists of regular bus service and chartered bus trips. The regular bus service consists of seasonal service between Baltimore, Maryland, and racetracks located in several states. The chartered bus trips originate in either Baltimore, Maryland, or Annapolis, Maryland, pass through or stop at points of interest located in several different states and then return to the point of origin.

The only contact of the defendant with the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania occurs in those instances when chartered buses owned and operated by the defendant either pass through the Commonwealth enroute to a point of interest located in some other state or travel to some point of interest located in this Commonwealth. These chartered trips have been made into this Commonwealth on many occasions and for a variety of reasons since 1933. The trips originate in either Annapolis or Baltimore and passengers are boarded and fares are paid only at the point of origin. When the bus reaches its intended destination the passengers are discharged and left on their own and the bus and driver await their return. Once the passengers complete their tours or whatever else was intended by the trip, they are boarded on the bus and returned to the point of origin where they are discharged.

The determination of whether a foreign corporation meets the legislative standard...