Court Opinion

ID: 9747443
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-27 15:15:24.045704+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:25:23.763290
License: Public Domain

DEL SOLE, Judge,
dissenting.
I cannot agree that the coke oven door machine is an improvement to real property. I would therefore affirm the trial court’s refusal to enter judgment in favor of Appellant.
Appellant’s primary argument on this point centers on the size of the door machine. However, while that may be a factor to consider, it is not determinative. In Schmoyer v. *290Mexico Forge, Inc., 423 Pa.Super. 593, 621 A.2d 692 (1993), reversed on other grounds, 538 Pa. 1, 645 A.2d 811 (1994), a playground ride, which is considerably smaller than the door machine, was found to be an improvement to real property because it was anchored in concrete and embedded in the ground. The machine in question here, however, is not attached to the real property. It moves on rails and is capable of being relocated without damage to the real property. It is not attached to the coke oven battery in any way and is, in fact, moved to a separate area for repairs and maintenance. It is akin to a railroad car in that it moves from place to place on tracks similar to railroad tracks. Surely, one would not consider an Amtrak car, for example, to be an improvement to all the real property over which it passes. Prior cases holding the statute applicable involved equipment which was affixed to the real property and stationary. See, e.g., McCormick v. Columbus Conveyer Co., 522 Pa. 520, 564 A.2d 907 (1989) (belt conveyor component of coal delivery system). Here, the machine itself is not affixed to the real property; the rails on which it travels may be but the machine itself is .not. The door machine is simply a very large piece of machinery, but is not an improvement to real property.
Moreover, in my opinion, the concept that this particular statute is a statute of repose needs to be re-examined. A statute. of repose completely abrogates a cause of action whereas a statute of limitations merely sets a time limit within which an action on a cause of action must be commenced. Misitis v. Steel City Piping Co., 441 Pa. 339, 272 A.2d 883 (1971). A statute of limitations must be pleaded as an affirmative defense whereas a statute of repose is not waived by the failure to plead it but may be raised by a motion for nonsuit, directed verdict or judgment N.O.V. First Pool Gas Coal Co. v. Wheeler Run Coal Co., 301 Pa. 485, 152 A. 685 (1930).
In Freezer Storage v. Armstrong Cork Co., 476 Pa. 270, 382 A.2d 715 (1978), our Supreme Court, in discussing the predecessor statute, noted that the statute eliminated a cause of action, thus making it a statute of repose. This court thereafter relied on Freezer Storage v. Armstrong Cork Co. as *291precedent for holding that the present statute is also a statute of repose. Mitchell v. United Elevator Co., Inc., 290 Pa.Super. 476, 434 A.2d 1243 (1981). Subsequent cases have referred to the Mitchell holding with little or no discussion. Noll by Noll v. Harrisburg Area YMCA, 537 Pa. 274, 643 A.2d 81 (1994); Schaffer v. Litton Systems, Inc., 372 Pa.Super. 123, 539 A.2d 360 (1988); but see, Altoona Area School Dist. v. Campbell, 152 Pa.Cmwlth. 131, 618 A.2d 1129 (1992).
The Mitchell court did not note any differences between the two statutes, merely stating that the prior statute was “substantially reenacted” as 42 Pa.C.S. § 5536. There is, however, a very significant difference between the two statutes. The predecessor statute read, in relevant part: “No action ... shall be brought.... ” 12 P.S. § 65.1 (repealed July 9, 1976, P.L. 586, effective June 27, 1978). The present statute states that an action “must be commenced.” 42 Pa.C.S. § 5536. This is the precise language used in the various statutes of limitation.
Of the eleven statutes contained in the chapter on limitation of actions, all use the phrase “must be commenced” or “shall be commenced.” These include the six-month statute of limitations for setting aside a judicial sale and establishing a deficiency judgment, 42 Pa.C.S. § 5522, the one-year statute of limitations for libel and slander and actions on bonds, 42 Pa.C.S. § 5523, the two-year statute of limitations for tortious conduct, 42 Pa.C.S. § 5524, the four-year statute of limitations for contract actions, 42 Pa.C.S. § 5525, the five-year statute of limitations for specific performance, redemption and trusts in real property, 42 Pa.C.S. § 5526, the fifteen-year statute of limitations for escheat actions, 42 Pa.C.S. § 5528, the twenty-year statute of limitations for instruments in writing under seal, 42 Pa.C.S. § 5529, and the twenty-one year statute of limitations for possession of real property, 42 Pa.C.S. § 5530, as well as the catch-all statute of limitations of six years for actions not otherwise specified, 42 Pa.C.S. § 5527. All of these statutes of limitation use the very same language used in § 5536, the statute involved here.
*292The only statutes which are different are 42 Pa.C.S. § 5537 and § 5538 which concern land surveying and landscape architecture. Both of these statutes include the additional language that an action not commenced within the time period “shall be forever barred.” It is this language which differentiates these two statutes from the remaining ones and which is an immediate indication that § 5537 and § 5538 are statutes of repose rather than statutes of limitation. Section 5536 contains no such language. The language of § 5536 is identical to the language of the statutes of limitation and is not the same as the language of the statutes of repose. The legislature has specifically stated, in § 5537 and § 5538, that it intends to abrogate the cause of action rather than simply set a time limit for commencing an action. It has not indicated such an intent in § 5536 but has merely set forth a statute of limitations.
A statute of limitations is, of course, an affirmative defense which must be pleaded or it is waived. Stahl v. Hilderhoff, 432 Pa. 179, 247 A.2d 582 (1968); Fudula v. Keystone Wire & Iron Works, 283 Pa.Super. 502, 424 A.2d 921 (1981). Appellant did not plead the statute as a defense. Although it appears that there may have been some discussion of the statute prior to trial, the first record mention of § 5536 is when Appellant moved for a nonsuit after Appellee presented her case. Appellant should not be permitted to raise an affirmative defense at that stage of the trial.
For all of these reasons, I would affirm the judgment and therefore must respectfully dissent from the majority decision.