Court Opinion

ID: 9751873
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 17:12:28.26622+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:27:01.076340
License: Public Domain

Justice SAYLOR,
concurring.
I remain somewhat circumspect concerning the majority’s pronouncement that Appellee’s cause of action is meritorious, see Majority Opinion, at 353-54, 980 A.2d at 506, since the matter is outside the scope of the allocatur grant. See Merlini v. Gallitzin Water Auth., 597 Pa. 57, 950 A.2d 264 (2008) (per curiam). Moreover, Appellee has not identified the specific line of authority suggesting direct liability of an engineer to a party impacted by a trespassing contractor acting pursuant to the engineer’s specifications. Thus, I would refrain from commenting on the merits.
I also differ with the majority’s conclusion that this is a pure “ordinary negligence” case. The majority describes Appellee’s cause of action as one for “basic negligent trespass,” explaining “this is not a breach of duty owed by a professional, but a breach of a duty owed by any third party entering upon the property of another.” Majority Opinion, at 356, 980 A.2d at 507. The difficulty with this analysis is that Appellant is not alleged to have entered on the property of another, and thus, the action against Appellant is not one of “basic negligent trespass.” Rather, the critical averments of the complaint pertaining to the claim against Appellant are that:
[Appellant] is the engineering firm that were [sic] the engineers for the Water System Improvements relating to the water line installed by Kukurin Contracting, Inc. for the Gallitzin Water Authority.
It is believed and therefore averred that [Appellant] had a duty to plot out any right of way needed to lay out the new water line or to assure the Gallitzin Water Authority no such easement or right of way was needed.
*359It is believed and therefore averred that [Appellant] negligently researched the right of way along S.R. 4001.
Complaint at ¶¶ 17-19. In my view, Appellees’ theory of liability on the part of Appellant, as a third party to the alleged trespass, necessarily entails an examination of Appellant’s professional services. At a minimum, I believe the action reasonably could be regarded at least as a quasi-professional liability action.
At the margins, the “ordinary” versus “professional” negligence cases entail a fair amount of line drawing in and of themselves, and the unique nature of the liability asserted in the present third-party scenario creates additional conceptual difficulties. Furthermore, as Appellants argue, the Civil Procedural Rules require that a certificate of merit speak to both the relevant professional standards and causation, see Pa. R.Civ.P. No. 1042.3(a)(1), and I believe Appellants advance a substantial argument that the determination of causation (entailing, inter alia, the “clarification of] the property rights as established through state, county, and municipal records,” Majority Opinion, at 356, 980 A.2d at 507, as well as a review of Appellant’s project specifications) would implicate a certificate, assuming all other conditions were met.
Ultimately, I join the majority’s holding because I believe our rules were not sufficiently definite concerning whether the certificate of merit requirement pertained in an action against an unlicensed entity and/or in the discrete third-party (or quasi-professional liability) scenario. Thus, I believe the benefit of the doubt should be afforded to the plaintiff where a restrictive rule lacks certainty and definiteness. See generally Pa.R.Civ.P. No. 126 (“The rules shall be liberally construed to secure the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every action or proceeding to which they are applicable.”). Notably, as the parties discuss, the rules have been amended to eliminate the relevant uncertainties. See Pa.R.Civ.P. Nos. 1042.1(a) (“The rules of this chapter govern a civil action in which a professional liability claim is asserted by or on behalf of a patient or client of the licensed professional ...” (emphasis added)), 1042.1(a)(2) (providing that the rules apply in *360actions against partnerships, unincorporated associations, corporations, or similar entities where the entity is responsible for a licensed professional who deviated from an acceptable professional standard).