Court Opinion

ID: 9728729
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 14:15:15.263838+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:51.486253
License: Public Domain

Concurring and Dissenting Opinion by
Judge MacPhail :
I concur with the result reached by the majority that the action of the trial court in sustaining the demurrer to the cross claim of Uniservice Corporation was correct. However, for the reason hereinafter set forth, I believe that the case should be remanded to the trial court for a further order.
The trial court sustained the Commonwealth’s demurrer without affording to Uniservice Corporation the opportunity to amend. The majority opinion treats very adequately the reasons why the demurrer should be sustained but is silent as to the right of Uniservice Corporation to amend.
I am of the opinion that the cross claim could be amended to state a cause of action and that Uniservice Corporation is entitled to do so. Adler v. Helsel, 344 Pa. 386, 25 A.2d 714 (1942). In Winters v. Pennsylvania Railroad Co., 304 Pa. 243, 155 A. 486 (1931), our Supreme Court said:
The question before the court was not solely whether, under the facts as stated, plaintiff could recover, but whether the claim as stated excluded the possibility of recovery under a better statement of facts. Here it is evident that a better statement of facts could show an enforceable claim. The court should have sustained the demurrer and granted plaintiff leave to file a further statement of claim within a limited time, or, on failure, ordered judgment of non pros to be entered. This was not a matter of discretion with the court below but a positive duty.
Id. at 247, 155 A. at 487.
*79I conclude that the trial court had the duty to afford Uniservice Corporation the opportunity to amend its cross claim if it could and for that reason I would remand to the trial court for the entry of an appropriate order.