Court Opinion

ID: 9652460
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 17:24:03.960538+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:12:51.615991
License: Public Domain

dissenting.
I strenuously dissent. It is a gross misconstruction of the English language to conclude that appellant, the City of Philadelphia, preserved for appellate review its claim that it owed no duty to appellee, Edward Scarborough, merely by phrasing the issue it did preserve (the issue of causation) in terms of “alleged” negligence. This amounts to no more than a “boilerplate” allegation. We have held that such allegations constitute “a lack of diligence” on the part of counsel, and we consider the issues raised in such fashion to be waived. See In re Estate of Hall, 517 Pa. 115, 137-38, 535 A.2d 47, 58 (1987). The issue of appellant’s duty is not raised in appellant’s post-trial motions nor is there any argument in appellant’s post-trial brief plumbing the depths of the law of this Commonwealth regarding the source, existence or nature of the duty owed by appellant to appellee. Thus, the issue was waived, and the majority of this Court is retreating from our fifteen year clear and wise *41pronouncement set forth in Dilliplaine v. Lehigh Valley Trust Company, 457 Pa. 255, 322 A.2d 114 (1974).
Accordingly, I would affirm the order of Superior Court and would remand the case to the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County for a new trial.
PAPADAKOS, J., joins in this dissenting opinion.