Court Opinion

ID: 9712705
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 04:58:37.493176+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:13.812520
License: Public Domain

PRICE, Judge
(dissenting).
The majority notes that the appellee, Henry J. Kaylen, died on October 27, 1970. Were it not for this fact, I could accept the result of the majority’s holding. Because of it, I respectfully dissent.
Initially I agree that the evidence supports the conclusion that appellants sued Henry J. Kaylen but mis-captioned their complaint. However the unsuccessful *445attempts by the sheriff to serve this complaint between its filing on March 6, 1970 and May 26, 1970 when it was finally served are notice to appellants of a problem which to me would place upon them a burden of further investigation. Harry J. Kaylen, the named defendant, had died on February 15, 1965, more than three (3) years prior to the motor vehicle accident involved herein. Harry J. Kaylen was the father of the appellee, Henry J. Kaylen (R 39a). The police report clearly indicates the driver involved to be Henry J. Kaylen (R 38a). The most elementary investigation by appellants would have disclosed the error and allowed early correction of the matter either by prompt amendment or the filing of a correct complaint in a new action. Failing this, the appellants are responsible for the delay and the obvious resulting prejudice to appellee’s position. To my view, it is simply improper to now permit the amendment and the lower court acted properly within the ambit of Rule 1033 and the applicable law when, by order dated November 18, 1975 it denied appellants’ petition to amend.
Nor do I find any basis to conclude that appellee’s agent, his insurance carrier, misled appellants into believing that Harry J. Kaylen was, at least, a proper designation for appellee. It is, to me, just as logical to conclude that the agent was honestly confused by the use of the wrong name. The only possible support for the majority’s conclusion is contained in appellants’ pleading styled Plaintiffs’ Answer to the Petition for Withdrawal of Appearance (R 12a) under New Matter. These allegations are then summarized in appellants’ brief purportedly as a review of the evidence (Brief p. 11) when in truth they are not evidence. There is not an iota of evidence supporting these allegations. Further, by Stipulation of Counsel dated February 28, 1972 (R 69a) the pleading containing these allegations was withdrawn. I, therefore, find no support for the majority’s conclusion that appellee’s agent misled appel*446lants. And indeed, the lower court never was presented with such a claim.
I would affirm the order of the lower court dated November 18, 1975.