Court Opinion

ID: 9752204
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 17:44:05.526942+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:27:09.366345
License: Public Domain

ZAPPALA, Justice,
dissenting.
I dissent. The majority has chosen to ignore the well-established rule in this Commonwealth that the grant of non pros is founded upon the equitable principle of laches not the statute of limitations. James Brothers Lumber Company v. Union Banking and Trust Company of DuBois, 432 Pa. 129, 132-133, 247 A.2d 587, 590 (1968). The question of laches does not depend, as does the statute of limitation, upon the fact that a certain time has elapsed since the cause of actions accrued, but whether under all the facts and circumstances of the particular case, the plaintiff is chargeable with want of due diligence in failing to proceed with reasonable promptitude. Manson v. First National Bank, 366 Pa. 211, 215, 77 A.2d 399, 401 (1951). Nor will the plaintiff be penalized for laches if his delay has not resulted in injury to his adversary. Id. 366 Pa. at 216, *35877 A.2d at 402 citing Montgomery Brothers, Inc. v. Montgomery, 269 Pa. 332, 112 A. 474 (1921); Selmer v. Smith, 285 Pa. 67, 70, 131 A. 663, 665 (1926); and Quinn v. American Spiral Spring & Manufacturing Co., 293 Pa. 152, 160, 141 A. 855, 858 (1928).
The majority stands this well-established rule of law on its head in the erroneous belief that the third prong of the James Brothers test was modified to some extent in Shrum v. Philadelphia Electric Co., 440 Pa. 383, 269 A.2d 502 (1970) by finding that a lapse of time is presumptively prejudicial and that actual prejudice need not be shown. In Shrum we stated: “Such a lapse of time [in bringing a post-trial motion on for argument] is presumptively prejudicial to all parties even without any specific showing of prejudice on the record____ In these circumstances, and in the discretion of the lower court, a judgment of non pros might well have been entered.” Id., 440 Pa. at 386-387, 269 A.2d at 504 (emphasis added). However, the latter statement is merely dictum, because we concluded by stating: “No such motions [non pros] were filed, however, and the lower court did not decide the case on the ground of delay alone. We have therefore considered the appeal on its merits.” Id. Reliance on Shrum is therefore misplaced.
The third prong of the James Brothers test provides that the delay has caused some prejudice to the adverse party such as the death of or unexplained absence of material witnesses. James Brothers, 432 Pa. at 132, 247 A.2d at 589. The facts of the case sub judice must be applied to this standard.
Insurance Company of North America’s (INA) Petition for Rule to Show Cause why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute in accordance with Pa.R.J.A. 1901 in relevant part asserts:
14. INA has suffered prejudice because of the longstanding dormancy of this case and will be substantially impaired from properly presenting its defense.
*35915. PPI’s Complaint and Amended Complaint are apparently based upon either an alleged contract entered into in 1976 or alleged fraud of INA that occurred in 1976.
16. No discovery has occurred in this case to preserve witnesses’ recollection of the material events in this litigation.
17. Because of the time that has passed between the alleged relevant acts and the present time witnesses have disbursed and their recollections have faded.
18. The prejudice that has occurred to INA in its ability to defend this case because of the passage of time is obvious.
19. PPI’s inexcusable delay in this matter and the resulting prejudice suffered by INA justify dismissal of this case.
WHEREFORE, Insurance Company of North America respectfully requests that a Rule be entered upon Penn Piping, Inc. requiring it to show cause why Penn Piping, Inc.’s suit should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute.
(R. 38a.)
INA’s petition fails to specifically identify the witnesses to which reference is made or the particular evidence that no longer exists. INA, even now, has not offered such information. Furthermore, INA could have conducted discovery to have preserved the testimony of those now unnamed witnesses. Instead, INA relies on bald claims of prejudice as the result of the delay. Because actual prejudice was not shown on the record, the Superior Court did not err by finding that INA made no showing that its case was prejudiced by Penn Piping, Inc.’s delay in prosecuting its case.
I would therefore affirm the order of the Superior Court which reversed the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County that made absolute the rule to show *360cause why this action should not be dismissed for inactivity and dismissed this action.
LARSEN and CAPPY, JJ., join in this dissenting opinion.