Jermyn v. Skettino

Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas

Jermyn v. Skettino

47 Pa. D. & C. 108, 1943 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 371

Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Lackawanna County·Decided April 14, 1943·No. no. 465·Published

Opinion

Leach, P. J.,

The statement in this case was amended. The amendment setting forth the negligence, instead of clarifying the issue, made it a triple alternative. Paragraph 6 sets forth “without providing either sufficient lighting or having the lighting device lit at or in the vicinity of the location of the said pipe railing”. Thus we do not know whether the charge of negligence is that defendant did not provide a light, or, second, did not have the light lit, or, third, had a light which was not sufficient for the purposes.

Now, April 14, 1943, rule for more specific statement is made absolute, and plaintiff is allowed 15 days to file a second amended statement.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Leach, P. J.,

The statement in this case was amended. The amendment setting forth the negligence, instead of clarifying the issue, made it a triple alternative. Paragraph 6 sets forth “without providing either sufficient lighting or having the lighting device lit at or in the vicinity of the location of the said pipe railing”. Thus we do not know whether the charge of negligence is that defendant did not provide a light, or, second, did not have the light lit, or, third, had a light which was not sufficient for the purposes.

Now, April 14, 1943, rule for more specific statement is made absolute, and plaintiff is allowed 15 days to file a second amended statement.

Jermyn v. Skettino, 47 Pa. D. & C. 108, 1943 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 371 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1943).

Pincite

47 Pa. D. & C. 108 (Jermyn v. Skettino) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.