Casualty

The plaintiff, a motorcyclist, was injured as a result of collision with a vehicle in an intersection where PennDot and the Township coordinated the installation of a round mirror in an attempt to aid drivers in seeing oncoming traffic. The plaintiff had two engineering experts inspect the intersection and the mirror, and he eventually sued the Township, PennDot, the other driver and his insurer, alleging, inter alia, that PennDot was negligent for “allowing a dangerous, defective, hazardous, inadequate mirror to exist at the intersection…” 

After the expiration of the statute, the plaintiff hired another engineering expert to inspect the mirror. This expert concluded in his report that the mirror used actually provided less sight distance than if there was no mirror at all and that the mirror was, therefore, defective. The plaintiff thereafter filed another lawsuit against the manufacturer and supplier of the mirror. The defendants from the original lawsuit were joined, later filing a motion for judgment on the pleadings on the statute of limitations issue, which the trial court granted. 

The Commonwealth Court affirmed this decision, emphasizing the plaintiff’s verification in the original complaint that contained allegations of a defective condition, and held that under the “inquiry notice” approach to the discovery rule, the statute is tolled when a plaintiff has actual or constructive knowledge of some form of harm tied to another’s conduct, not upon notice of the precise cause. 

Although not a precedential opinion, the Commonwealth Court’s thorough analysis of the discovery rule in the context of expert investigations and opinions provides a relevant roadmap for contesting untimely claims on additional theories of liability.
 

 

^{Case Law Alerts, 1st Quarter, January 2022 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 © 2022 Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.}