No. 421 April Term, 1977, Appeal from an Order dated November 29, 1976, and filed December 23, 1976, and Judgment entered December 23, 1976, of the Court of Common Pleas, Civil Division of Allegheny County, Civil Action-Law No. 3635 July Term, 1974, Issue No. 92263
Harry R. Ruprecht, Pittsburgh, with him Homer W. King, Pittsburgh, for appellant.
S. Asher Winikoff, Pittsburgh, with him Rosenberg, Kirshner & Kaleugher, Pittsburgh, for appellee.
Watkins, President Judge, and Jacobs, Hoffman, Cercone, Price, Van der Voort and Spaeth, JJ. Price, J., files a dissenting opinion in which Van der Voort, J., joins. Watkins, former President Judge, did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.
[ 254 Pa. Super. Page 120]
PRICE, Judge, dissenting:
On November 10, 1972, an automobile accident occurred involving Scott Berkey's car and a vehicle driven by Mark Puliafico. Berkey and his passenger, Leo Dafner, brought suit against Puliafico, alleging negligent and reckless driving. Berkey was joined as an additional defendant, and he was represented by separate counsel in that capacity. On September 5, 1975, the case was ordered to proceed in the Arbitration Division of the Allegheny County Court, pursuant
[ 254 Pa. Super. Page 121]
to the Arbitration Act of 1836, as amended.*fn1 A panel of arbitrators heard the case on March 22, 1976, and awarded Dafner $2,000.00 against both the original and the additional defendants.
The board found in favor of Puliafico on appellant Berkey's claim against him. On April 12, 1976, a timely appeal was filed by Scott Berkey in accordance with section 27 of the Arbitration Act.*fn2 Puliafico's counsel motioned for an order granting Dafner judgment against both defendants. On November 29, 1976, the prothonotary was ordered to enter judgment. This appeal followed.
The issue which the instant case presents has been raised on numerous occasions before this court, and I find the varied results most disturbing. The issue simply stated is, when one of several parties to an arbitration appeals, which of the non-appealing parties are also to be included in the review? A rule was generally ...