More specifically, in this case the Defendant objected to the Plaintiff's Complaint based on Connor, asserting that the Plaintiff had not cited the specific sections of the Vehicle Code that the Defendant had allegedly violated
Judge Nealon primarily relied upon the decision in Com., Dept. of Transportation v. Shipley Humble Oil Company, 370 A.2d 438, 440 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1977) to overrule the preliminary objections in this regard. That decision states that specific statute provisions need not be identified so long as the plaintiff avers facts that bring the claim within the statute.
The Defendant in the Freethy case also objected to the Plaintiff's allegations of wanton and reckless conduct, asserting that such allegations lacked factual support. According to the Opinion, this matter involved a high speed accident in a construction zone.
Judge Nealon pointed to Archibald v. Kemble, 971 A.2d 513, 519 (Pa. Super. 2009), app. denied, 605
Anyone desiring a copy of Judge Nealon's Opinion in Freethy v. Goike may contact me at dancummins@comcast.net.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.