Court Opinion

ID: 9754481
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 20:02:35.418668+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:27:54.057737
License: Public Domain

WIEAND, Judge,
concurring:
I join the majority’s decision to reverse and remand. I write separately only to make several observations. First, the only reason given by the trial court for refusing to allow the late joinder of the plaintiff’s employer as an additional defendant was that Pa.R.C.P. 2252(a) did not allow the joinder of an express indemnitor in an action based on negligence. I agree with the majority that this issue is controlled by the prior decision of this Court in *225Szemanski v. Vulcan Materials Co., 272 Pa.Super. 240, 415 A.2d 92 (1979).
The second observation which I would make is that neither the trial court nor this Court has considered whether the stairway leading to the employer’s office was a part of the “demised premises” within which the agreement to indemnify was operative. The applicability of the indemnification agreement to the facts of this case, therefore, is still an open question. We hold only that it was error to disallow the late joinder in this case solely on grounds that plaintiff’s employer, allegedly an express indemnitor, could not be joined in the plaintiff’s action against the landlord for defective design or maintenance of the stairs to the offices of plaintiff’s employer.