Title: Dawn A. Pyeritz, Admin. of the Estate of Daniel E. Pyeritz, v. Pa. State Police (concurring)

State: pennsylvania

Issuer: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Document:

[J-73-2009] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA WESTERN DISTRICT DAWN A. PYERITZ, ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF DANIEL E. PYERITZ, DECEASED, AND DAWN A. PYERITZ, PARENT AND NATURAL GUARDIAN OF NICOLE L. PYERITZ, A MINOR, AND CHRISTOPHER E. PYERITZ, A MINOR, AND DAWN A. PYERITZ, AN INDIVIDUAL, IN HER OWN RIGHT, Appellants v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, STATE POLICE DEPARTMENT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, COL. JEFFREY B. MILLER, COMMISSIONER, PENNSYLVANIA STATE POLICE, PENNSYLVANIA STATE POLICE TROOPERS JAMES CUSTER AND DANIEL EKIS, PENNSYLVANIA STATE POLICE CORPORALS JAMES CACCIMELIO AND ANDRE STEVENS AND PENNSYLVANIA STATE POLICE LIEUTENANT CHARLES DEPP, Appellees : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 9 WAP 2009 Appeal from the Order of the Commonwealth Court entered September 15, 2008 at No. 1592 CD 2007, affirming the Order of the Fayette County Court of Common Pleas entered July 20, 2007 at No. GD 541 of 2005. ARGUED: September 15, 2009 CONCURRING OPINION [J-73-2009] - 2 MADAME JUSTICE TODD DECIDED: NOVEMBER 23, 2011 I join the Majority Opinion with one exception. I disagree with the majority’s suggestion that Appellants’ counsel, in relying on the state trooper’s agreement to retain the evidence at the state police barracks, somehow lacked due care. See Majority Opinion at 8-9. Indeed, I believe counsel can and should be able to reasonably rely on the assurances of law enforcement personnel. Nonetheless, I agree, for purposes of this question in tort, the state trooper’s assurances do not control the issue of the Commonwealth’s liability.