Appeals from the Orders of the Court of Common Pleas of Lawrence County in the case of Lori Jin Kirsch v. Parking Authority of the City of New Castle, a Public Authority, and Donald M. McNeil & Associates, John Y. Fujiwara, Goldfarb & Hecht, and V.S.L. Corporation, No. 890 of 1982.
Donald E. Williams, for appellant, Lori Jin Kirsch.
Lawrence E. Kelly, with him, Charles W. Garbett and Larry M. Kelly, Luxenberg, Garbett & Kelly, for appellant, Parking Authority.
Peter J. Taylor, Murphy, Taylor & Adams, P.C., for appellee, Goldfarb & Hecht.
William J. Templin, Miller & Templin, for appellee, Donald M. McNeil.
Joseph J. Bosick, Meyer, Darragh, Buckler, Bebenek & Eck, for appellee, John Y. Fujiwara.
Richard J. Parks, with him, Lee Montgomery, for appellee, V.S.L. Corporation.
Judges MacPhail and Barry, and Senior Judge Blatt, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge MacPhail.
[ 108 Pa. Commw. Page 261]
In the matter now before us, the Parking Authority of the City of New Castle (Authority) appeals from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Lawrence County which denied the Authority's petition to join four additional defendants.*fn1 Lori Jin Kirsch (Plaintiff) cross-appeals from that part of the court's order which disallows certain testimony relative to the proof of her case. The appeals were transferred here from the Superior Court of Pennsylvania and have been consolidated for disposition.
The Plaintiff commenced a personal injury action in the trial court for damages relative to injuries she sustained on October 20, 1980 when she fell on the stairs of a parking garage operated and maintained by the Authority. The complaint was filed January 3, 1983. Paragraphs 8 and 9 of the complaint set forth the specific acts of negligence of which the Authority is accused.*fn2
[ 108 Pa. Commw. Page 262]
As the case proceeded, the Authority served written interrogatories upon the Plaintiff. Interrogatory No. 27 requested the names of all experts to be called as witnesses at the time of trial. Interrogatory No. 28 requested the Plaintiff to state with specificity the nature of the defects set forth in paragraph 9 of the complaint, the standards or codes violated and how the defects caused the dangerous condition to exist. In response to Interrogatory No. 27, ...