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.

RICHARD J. BELL AND RUTH BELL v. ERNEST P. SANTIAGO (03/10/86)

filed: March 10, 1986.

RICHARD J. BELL AND RUTH BELL, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
ERNEST P. SANTIAGO



Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas, Civil Division, of Cumberland County at No. 952 Civil Division.

COUNSEL

Raymond E. Ginn, Jr., Wellsboro, for appellants.

Thomas J. Williams, Carlisle, for appellee.

Wickersham, Cirillo and Johnson, JJ.

Author: Wickersham

[ 351 Pa. Super. Page 432]

This is an appeal from an order granting a motion for summary judgment entered September 28, 1984, in the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County.

In an opinion supporting the entry of summary judgment the court discussed the underlying facts and the issue as:

Defendant's vehicle struck the rear of plaintiffs' automobile at an intersection in Camp Hill, Pennsylvania, on March 21, 1980. Plaintiff Richard Bell sustained injuries to the cervical spine as a result of the accident. His symptoms continued to bother him; on April 11, 1980, he sought medical treatment in Corning, New York, where he resides. He was later advised that his injuries were serious and permanent. Plaintiff commenced this action in trespass on March 25, 1982. Defendant claims that the action is barred by Pennsylvania's two-year statute of limitations; his motion for summary judgment is now before the court.

Plaintiff and defendant agree that New York law will determine whether or not plaintiff may sue in tort. The

[ 351 Pa. Super. Page 433]

Pennsylvania No-Fault Motor Vehicle Insurance Act states: "The right of a victim or a survivor of a deceased victim to sue in tort shall be determined by the law of the state of domicile of such victim." 40 Pa.C.S. § 1009.110(c)(2). Plaintiff contends that New York's three-year statute of limitations should be applied in this case; defendant contends that 110(c)(2) does not require the court to apply the statute of limitations of the victim's domicile state, and that the Pennsylvania Statute of limitations applies.

This appeal timely followed. We reverse.

Appellants raise*fn1 a novel issue in this appeal by asking this court to determine whether under the Pennsylvania No-fault Motor Vehicle Insurance Act,*fn2 a non-resident's suit in tort is governed by Pennsylvania's two-year statute of limitations set forth in 42 Pa.C.S. § 5524(2); or whether the statute of ...


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.