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.

LINDA CASELLI AND GEORGE CASELLI v. JOHN WANAMAKER (03/30/84)

filed: March 30, 1984.

LINDA CASELLI AND GEORGE CASELLI, HUSBAND/WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
JOHN WANAMAKER, PHILADELPHIA AND ESTEE LAUDER, INC.



No. 1117 PHILADELPHIA, 1982, Appeal from an Order of March 5, 1982, in the Court of Common Pleas, Civil Division, of Philadelphia County, No. 154 December 1978.

COUNSEL

Seymour Wasserstrum, Philadelphia, for appellants.

Eric A. Weiss, Media, for appellees.

McEwen, Hester and Lipez, JJ. McEwen, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.

Author: Hester

[ 326 Pa. Super. Page 292]

Appellants, Linda and George Caselli, filed a Complaint in Trespass and Assumpsit against appellees, John Wanamaker, Philadelphia and Estee Lauder, Inc., in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County. Appellant, Linda Caselli, purchased a jar of European Performing Cream sold by appellee Wanamaker and manufactured by appellee Estee Lauder. Appellants allege that Linda Caselli sustained multiple injuries to her eyes following application of this cream to her face. Appellants complaint was filed in the Civil Division of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County; however, it was later submitted by the Arbitration Commission for arbitration. The panel of arbitrators filed an award for appellees and against appellants. Appellants appealed to the Civil Division of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County and thereby acquired a trial de novo.

Neither appellants nor their counsel appeared for trial on March 5, 1982. Appellees and their counsel were present. Appellants' counsel directed substitute counsel, who was unfamiliar with the case, to appear at trial and inform the court that counsel was not prepared to go to trial. Substitute counsel was similarly not prepared for trial; however, he attempted on the day of trial to settle the case. When settlement did not occur, appellees filed a motion for non-suit. A non-suit order resulted and appellants filed this appeal.

In the interest of a more comprehensive understanding of the background of this case, we shall discuss the method of dispensing trial notices in Philadelphia County. Effective March 1, 1982, four days prior to trial here, the assignment of a trial date was to appear first in The Legal Intelligencer one (1) week prior to and again on the day of trial.

[ 326 Pa. Super. Page 293]

Cases listed for trial or as back-up cases not heard on the assignment date would become the first cases for trial the following day.

The edition of The Legal Intelligencer dated February 22, 1982 notified the parties herein that their case was scheduled for trial on March 5, 1982. The Legal Intelligencer reprinted the trial date in its March 5th edition.

Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 216(A) sets forth grounds justifying ...


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.