Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

SHERRIE MCDANIEL v. SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY AND VIRGINIA BEATTIE (04/13/78)

decided: April 13, 1978.

SHERRIE MCDANIEL, A MINOR BY HER PARENT AND NATURAL GUARDIAN, CONSTANCE MCDANIEL AND CONSTANCE MCDANIEL, IN HER OWN RIGHT
v.
SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY AND VIRGINIA BEATTIE, ADDITIONAL DEFENDANT. APPEAL OF VIRGINIA BEATTIE



COUNSEL

Henry J. Lotto, Philadelphia, for appellant.

Allen L. Feingold, Philadelphia, submitted a brief, for appellees.

No appearance entered nor brief submitted for appellee, SEPTA.

Watkins, President Judge, and Jacobs, Hoffman, Cercone, Price, Van der Voort and Spaeth, JJ. Watkins, former President Judge, did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.

Author: Cercone

[ 253 Pa. Super. Page 52]

Sherrie McDaniel, joined by her mother as guardian and in her own right, filed a complaint in trespass against the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA),

[ 253 Pa. Super. Page 53]

    contending that she had been injured when the SEPTA bus in which she was riding collided with a car driven by Virginia Beattie. SEPTA brought in Virginia Beattie as additional defendant.

The procedural scramble that led to this appeal began when McDaniel served interrogatories on SEPTA. A month later McDaniel served interrogatories on Beattie. Neither defendant filed answers or timely objections to the interrogatories.*fn1 McDaniel, acting pursuant to a local rule,*fn2 obtained a default judgment against SEPTA for failure to answer interrogatories. McDaniel obtained an interlocutory order under the same rule requiring Beattie to answer McDaniel's interrogatories. Beattie's response was to file untimely objections to the interrogatories, contending that since her

[ 253 Pa. Super. Page 54]

    deposition was scheduled to be taken within the 30-day period for answers, the interrogatories and the sanction motions were moot. Beattie never sought an extension of the time to answer interrogatories or attempted to obtain a court ruling on the objections.

The day before Beattie's 30 days expired, she filed a pleading labeled "Additional Defendant's Answer to Interrogatories" which said in its entirety:

"All Answers contained in the Oral Deposition of the additional defendant which was taken on September 30, 1975. Plaintiff's attorney waived his presence at the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.