Court Opinion

ID: 9697053
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 19:04:44.918393+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:28.864955
License: Public Domain

NIGRO, Justice,
concurring.
I concur in the majority opinion, however, I write separately in order to address the concerns raised in the dissenting opinion. I disagree with Mr. Justice Cappy that joining an additional defendant does not constitute an action against that party. As the dissent points out, once an additional defendant is joined “... [t]he action becomes a combination of a suit of the plaintiff against the original defendant, a suit of the original defendant against the additional defendant, and a suit of the plaintiff against the additional defendant.” GoodrichAmram 2d § 2252:1.
In other words, once joined the additional defendant’s involvement in the action is as if it was an original defendant. For instance, an additional defendant is as vulnerable to a finding of liability as an original defendant. To conclude that a party is not in an “action” merely because it is an additional defendant ignores the practical reality of the lawsuit. The legislature enacted section 333 of the JCA in order to allow a municipality to defend itself in its home jurisdiction and the courts have recognized the importance of this principle. To follow the logic of the dissent, the municipality would be placed in a different position in defending itself as a third party defendant than as an original defendant even though the dissent agrees the same liability attaches to the municipality in either instance. This frustrates the purpose of the statute and leads to an absurd result.
*563In addition, contrary to the dissent, I do not find the majority’s position erodes this Court’s deference to plaintiffs choice of forum. Rather, it recognizes the competing interests of the plaintiffs choice of forum and the statutory requirement of where a municipality may be sued. Although the majority resolves this conflict in favor of the municipality, nevertheless, an original defendant will not be able to manipulate plaintiffs choice of forum merely by joining a municipality. If joinder of the municipality is not meritorious then the municipality will be removed from the action. Once the municipality is no longer a party to the action, plaintiff may properly file a petition to transfer venue back to the original jurisdiction by way of Pa.R.C.P. 1006(d)(1).