Pesta v. Barron

Decision Date21 January 1958
Citation138 A.2d 690,185 Pa.Super. 323
PartiesMichael A. PESTA, a minor, by Michael Pesta, Jr., his guardian, and Michael Peata, Jr., and Elizabeth Y. Pesta, in their own right, v. Jack BARRON and Vernon Carpenter, and Long Transportation Company, a Corporation. Appeal of LONG TRANSPORTATION COMPANY.
CourtPennsylvania Superior Court

Fred B. Trescher, Kunkle & Trescher, C. C. Walthour, Jr., Greensburg, for appellants.

Max M. Bergad, George S. Goldstein, Pittsburgh, for appellees.

Before RHODES, P. J., and HIRT, GUNTHER, WRIGHT, WOODSIDE, ERVIN and WATKINS, JJ.

RHODES, President Judge.

This is an appeal by Long Transportation Company, additional defendant in a trespass action, from the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County permitting the plaintiffs to voluntarily discontinue the action. Our review is to determine whether the court below abused its discretion. See Brown v. T. W. Phillips Gas and Oil Company, 365 Pa. 155, 159, 74 A.2d 105.

Plaintiffs brought an action in trespass on May 16, 1956, in the Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County, against Jack Barron the driver and Vernon Carpenter the owner of a tractor-trailer truck and the alleged employer of Barron, to recover damages for injuries sustained by Michael A. Pesta, a minor and passenger in an automobile which collided with the truck. Two days later plaintiffs instituted a similar action in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania against the present appellant, Long Transportation Company, a foreign corporation. On June 1, 1956, appellant filed an appearance in the District Court, and on June 4, 1956, it filed an answer to the complaint in that court. Thereafter, on June 25, 1956, defendant Vernon Carpenter filed an answer to plaintiffs' complaint in the Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County, denying agency, possession, and control; and on June 29, 1956, he filed a praecipe and complaint to join appellant as an additional defendant on the ground that appellant was either the sole or joint employer of the driver Barron and was therefore solely or jointly liable to plaintiffs. This was six weeks after plaintiffs had instituted suit in the District Court against appellant. On August 14, 1956, appellant filed preliminary objections to the joinder as additional defendant. It asserted that it could not be joined as an additional defendant in the action in Westmoreland County for the following reasons: (1) The Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County lacked jurisdiction over it as an additional defendant as Barron, the driver of the truck, was not its servant or employe at the time of the accident; (2) it was then a party to the action, being a defendant in a suit by plaintiffs in the District Court arising out of the same accident.

On March 16, 1957, plaintiffs presented a petition for leave to discontinue the action in the Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County in which counsel for the original defendants concurred. The petition averred that the suit was entered, without an investigation, in the Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County to safeguard the rights of minor plaintiff; that on learning of the relationship of Barron with appellant, a foreign corporation and interstate carrier, an action was brought two days later in the District Court; that the defendant Vernon Carpenter had filed an answer and joined appellant as an additional defendant on the ground that the latter was Barron's employer; that, in a companion case in the District Court brought by the administrator of an estate of another person killed in the same accident, appellant filed a motion to dismiss the complaint because the operator of the tractor-trailer truck was not its agent; that the District Court dismissed this motion and ordered appellant to file an answer to the complaint; and that plaintiffs desired to discontinue the action in the Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County without prejudice to proceed with the action in the District Court. On March 16, 1957, the court below, after argument, made its order permitting plaintiffs to discontinue the action brought in that court. On March 22, 1957, the case was voluntarily discontinued in accordance with the order of the court filed March 16, 1957. 1 On May 2, 1957, appellant appealed from the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County permitting the discontinuance by plaintiffs. The appeal was taken to the Supreme Court and by it remitted to this Court. Under the circumstances disclosed by this record, the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County permitting plaintiffs to discontinue their action in that court will be affirmed.

A plaintiff may voluntarily discontinue his action, in whole or in part, at any time prior to trial (Pa.R.C.P....

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Failor v. Westex, Inc.
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Superior Court
    • March 23, 1992
    ...130, 133, 299 A.2d 19, 20 (1972), citing Brown v. T.W. Phillips Gas and Oil Co., 365 Pa. 155, 74 A.2d 105 (1950) and Pesta v. Barron, 185 Pa.Super. 323, 138 A.2d 690 (1958); See also Star v. Sewickley Valley Hospital, 253 Pa.Super. 554, 385 A.2d 478 Appellant essentially argues that the low......
  • Martinelli v. Mulloy
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Superior Court
    • December 11, 1972
    ...trial is not timely, we need not resolve this issue. Cf. Goodrich-Amram Standard Pa. Practice, § 229(a)(2), p. 151 (1951). [4] See Pesta v. Barron, supra. [5] Compare the original statement of 2252(a), providing for joinder of additional defendants only after petitioning the court for 'leav......
  • Hopewell v. Hendrie
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Superior Court
    • August 11, 1989
    ...is vested in the sound discretion of the trial court, and we will not reverse absent an abuse of that discretion. Pesta v. Barron, 185 Pa.Super. 323, 138 A.2d 690 (1958). The exercise of discretion by the trial court is not, however, standardless. The rule expressly contemplates the strikin......
  • Ganoe v. Trident Corp.
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court
    • March 10, 1975
    ... ... stricken must show that he has been deprived of a substantial ... right or will be prejudiced by the discontinuance: Pesta ... v. Barron, 185 Pa.Super 323, 138 A.2d 690 (1958); ... Leibowitz, supra ... It is ... the opinion of the court that petitioner ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT