Court Opinion

ID: 9764086
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 03:09:34.997948+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:53.274212
License: Public Domain

JOHNSON, Judge,
dissenting:
Although I joined in the majority opinion in Ceresini v. Valley View Trailer Park, 380 Pa.Super. 416, 552 A.2d 258 (1988), I am now convinced that our interpretation of newly-promulgated Rule 238 was, and is, a mistake. In Ceresini, *509we concluded that the new rale must be applied to all cases in which damages for delay have not been “finally” determined. We further held that in all cases where the damages had not been “finally determined,” remand was required for application of all the provisions of the new rule.
I have now concluded that our supreme court could not possibly have intended such a result, at least on the facts presented here.
In this case, the trial court did determine delay damages. This case was submitted to our panel without oral argument. There is no suggestion that the plaintiff was responsible for any delay. The only issue raised was whether damages could be assessed without a showing of fault on the part of the defendant.
Where there is no dispute as to the facts, and where the appellant has not contended that the plaintiff caused delay, I conclude that the judgment on the molded verdict should remain undisturbed.
I recognize my position is inconsistent both with the holding of our court in Ceresini and my own position in that case. Nevertheless, I find myself compelled to dissent.