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.

KEVIN J. ERNEST v. FOX POOL CORPORATION (03/29/85)

filed: March 29, 1985.

KEVIN J. ERNEST, APPELLANT,
v.
FOX POOL CORPORATION, HARRY V. ROSE, INDIVIDUALLY; LAWRENCE S. ROSE, INDIVIDUALLY; ROSE SWIMMING POOL COMPANY; AND HARRY V. ROSE AND/OR LAWRENCE S. ROSE, DOING BUSINESS OR TRADING AS ROSE SWIMMING POOL COMPANY, ROBERT L. GOODALL, INC., APPELLEES. KEVIN J. ERNEST, APPELLANT, V. FOX POOL CORPORATION, NATIONAL SPA AND POOL INSTITUTE, WILLIAMS WINTERS AND LEANNA WINTERS, HIS WIFE, GEISINGER MEDICAL CENTER; AND FRED G. MCMURRY, M.D. V. ROBERT L. GOODALL, INC. V. HARRY V. ROSE, INDIVIDUALLY; LAWRENCE S. ROSE, INDIVIDUALLY; ROSE SWIMMING POOL COMPANY; AND HARRY V. ROSE AND/OR LAWRENCE S. ROSE, DOING BUSINESS OR TRADING AS ROSE SWIMMING POOL COMPANY, APPELLEES



No. 380 Philadelphia, 1984, No. 381 Philadelphia, 1984, Appeal from Orders of the Court of Common Pleas, Civil Division, of Northumberland County, No. CV 84-123.

COUNSEL

Richard C. Angino, Harrisburg, for appellant.

Charles W. Rubendoll, III, Harrisburg, for appellees.

Wieand, Montemuro and Cercone, JJ.

Author: Wieand

[ 341 Pa. Super. Page 72]

Kevin J. Ernest was injured when he attempted to dive into an innertube in a private pool owned by William and Leanna Winters in Northumberland, Northumberland County. By a multi-count complaint filed in Dauphin County, Ernest alleged that Fox Pool Corporation had defectively designed the pool, that the private owners of the pool and National Spa and Pool Institute, an association of swimming

[ 341 Pa. Super. Page 73]

    pool manufacturers, had been guilty of negligence, and that Geisinger Medical Center and Dr. Fred G. McMurry had been guilty of medical malpractice in treating Ernest's injuries. Robert L. Goodall, Inc., the alleged distributor of the pool, was joined as an additional defendant. In a separate action,*fn1 Rose Swimming Pool, the alleged retailer and the principles of that business, Harry V. and Lawrence S. Rose, were also made party defendants. In response to a defense petition filed pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1006(d),*fn2 the court in Dauphin County transferred venue to Northumberland County. Ernest appealed.

Pa.R.C.P. 1006(d) was considered by this Court in Fox v. Pennsylvania Power & Light Co., 315 Pa. Super. 79, 461 A.2d 805 (1983). We there said:

A court is authorized by Pa.R.C.P. 1006(d) to transfer an action to the appropriate court of any other county where the original action could have been brought if it will serve the convenience of parties and witnesses. This rule vests considerable discretion in the trial judge to determine whether to grant a petition for a change of venue. On appeal from such an order, the only issue is whether the trial judge abused his discretion. Plum v. Tampax, Inc., 399 Pa. 553, 560, 160 A.2d 549, 553 (1960); Hamay v. County of Washington, 291 Pa. Super. 137, 141, 435 A.2d 606, 608 (1981); Daugherty v. Inland Tugs Company, 240 Pa. Super. 527, 531, 359 A.2d 465, 467 (1976); Tarasi v. Settino, 223 Pa. Super. 158, 161-162, 298 A.2d 903, 905 (1972).

Id., 315 Pa. Superior Ct. at 81, 461 A.2d at 806. The rule directs that a court's decision on a petition to change venue shall be made according to the convenience of the parties

[ 341 Pa. Super. Page 74]

    and witnesses. Important considerations, as this Court recited them in Daugherty v. Inland Tugs Co., 240 Pa. ...


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.