Casualty

While the plaintiff was a guest at a hotel/water park, she was assaulted by defendants Perez and Griffin. The police responded, and Perez and Griffin supplied their address to the police. Counsel for the plaintiff later performed an internet search of these defendants, which revealed the same address supplied to the police. Plaintiff’s counsel mailed a copy of the writ of summons to this address via certified mail and later received the returned receipts. A copy of the complaint was also mailed to this address, which Griffin received a copy from her brother, Perez. In her preliminary objections to the complaint, Griffin argued that service was improper, as she did not live at the address where the writ and complaint were mailed to and as no residents at this address had her authority to act as her agent. 

In deciding the preliminary objections, the court ruled that service of the writ on Griffin was defective. However, the court did not dismiss the action as to Griffin. The court ruled that there were no facts to show that the plaintiff “demonstrated an intent to stall the judicial machinery or that defendant Griffin [wa]s prejudiced by the suit continuing.” The court found that the steps taken by plaintiff’s counsel showed that counsel acted in good faith to locate and attempt to serve Griffin. The court further found that as Griffin had knowledge of the action, she was not prejudiced in any way. The court ordered the plaintiff to make service of the writ on Griffin in accordance with the applicable rules of civil procedure.
 

 

^{Case Law Alerts, 4th Quarter, October 2021 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin to provide information on recent developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. Copyright © 2021 Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.}