Pietruszka v. Sobek

Erie County Court Common Pleas

Pietruszka v. Sobek

15 Pa. D. & C.2d 329, 1958 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 298

CourtPennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Erie County

DecidedMay 2, 1958

StatusPublished

This text of 15 Pa. D. & C.2d 329 (Pietruszka v. Sobek) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Erie County primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Pietruszka v. Sobek, 15 Pa. D. & C.2d 329, 1958 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 298 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1958).

Pincite

Opinion

Evans, P. J.,

This matter is before the court on a motion for a protective order in connection with a notice of taking depositions on oral examination under Pa. R. C. P. 4007.

It is represented that Irene Pietruszka is the six-year-old minor daughter of John Pietruszka, and that she was injured by coming in contact with an automobile owned and being driven by defendant. Defendant represents that he saw the child and had passed her on the street without striking her, and is unaware that the child was struck by his automobile. He seeks the right to obtain information as to circumstances concerning contact for purposes of trial.

We feel that an inquiry is justified, but that an oral examination should not be permitted. A six-year-old child is a difficult witness at best, and it is entirely possible that a rigid cross-examination might cause her so much terror that she would be unwilling to appear in her own behalf at the trial to be subsequently held. For that reason, we will permit inquiry only in the form of written interrogatories at a time and place to be reasonably fixed for the convenience of the parties.

And now, to wit, May 2, 1958, it is ordered and decreed that written interrogatories may be submitted to Irene Pietruszka and John Pietruszka. The motion for oral examination is denied.

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

Evans, P. J.,

This matter is before the court on a motion for a protective order in connection with a notice of taking depositions on oral examination under Pa. R. C. P. 4007.

It is represented that Irene Pietruszka is the six-year-old minor daughter of John Pietruszka, and that she was injured by coming in contact with an automobile owned and being driven by defendant. Defendant represents that he saw the child and had passed her on the street without striking her, and is unaware that the child was struck by his automobile. He seeks the right to obtain information as to circumstances concerning contact for purposes of trial.

We feel that an inquiry is justified, but that an oral examination should not be permitted. A six-year-old child is a difficult witness at best, and it is entirely possible that a rigid cross-examination might cause her so much terror that she would be unwilling to appear in her own behalf at the trial to be subsequently held. For that reason, we will permit inquiry only in the form of written interrogatories at a time and place to be reasonably fixed for the convenience of the parties.

And now, to wit, May 2, 1958, it is ordered and decreed that written interrogatories may be submitted to Irene Pietruszka and John Pietruszka. The motion for oral examination is denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

15 Pa. D. & C.2d 329, 1958 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 298, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pietruszka-v-sobek-pactcomplerie-1958.