Rhoads & Sinon senior litigation partner Thomas A. French recently argued an important case before the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.   Steiner v. Markel (No. 602 MAP 2008) involved the question whether long-standing line of Superior Court precedent beginning with the case of Cardenas v. Schober, 783 A.2d 317 (Pa. Super, 2001) should be overruled. Those cases had held that a trial court, when reviewing the legal sufficiency of a complaint, must consider the facts alleged in order to determine whether they would support any possible cause of action.

Mr. French argued in the Supreme Court that  this holding conflicts with Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1019 (a) which requires the plaintiff to state each cause of action in a separate count of the complaint.  Thus, for example,  where a plaintiff seeks to assert a claim that he was injured by a defective product, he potentially can file several counts in his complaint seeking relief based upon different legal theories.

He could state a count  alleging that  negligence by the defendant caused his injuries.  He could also claim that the product itself was defective, even where the defendant manufacturer was not negligent (for example where the defendant exercised due care in  manufacture of the product, but a defect occurred anyway).  In such cases, the rules of procedure require that each claim be stated in a separate count of the complaint.  This is intended to allow the defendant to know the claims being asserted against him so that he can fairly defend against them.

In the Steiner case, the plaintiff had brought a professional malpractice claim, stating in count I of the complaint that an attorney had negligently caused him harm.  The trial court dismissed the complaint stating that the plaintiff did not possess a negligence claim.  The Superior Court, sua sponte, "discovered"  that a breach of contract claim could have been stated based on the facts alleged, and reversed the trial court's decision.

The Supreme Court granted Mr. French's client's petition for allowance of appeal to decide whether the Superior Court properly relied on the Cardenas line of cases, or whether it was improper for that court to sua sponte raise this issue.  A decision is expected later this year.

Mr. French is a senior litigation partner with Rhoads & Sinon, having spent more than 25 years arguing cases before all levels of courts.  He has been an adjunct professor of law at Widener University School of Law, where he taught trial advocacy and Pennsylvania Civil Procedure.  He also served for many years on the Dickinson/Penn State University Law School Trial Advocacy faculty.  For more information go to his profile, or contact him at tfrench@rhoads-sinon.com or at 717 231-6625.