Wax v. Hertz Corp.

Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas

Wax v. Hertz Corp.

69 Pa. D. & C.2d 254, 1974 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 221

CourtPennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County

DecidedDecember 9, 1974

Docketno. 3608

StatusPublished

This text of 69 Pa. D. & C.2d 254 (Wax v. Hertz Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Wax v. Hertz Corp., 69 Pa. D. & C.2d 254, 1974 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 221 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

CIPRIANI, J.,

Defendant, Hertz Corporation, had reported one of its rental vehicles stolen. It was retrieved but defendant is accused of failing to take reasonable steps to notify the police. As a result, plaintiffs, who rented the vehicle from defendant were thereafter arrested.

Defendant in his preliminary objections argues that plaintiff has failed to state a cause of action in that there can be no recovery for negligently inflicting mental distress. While no such tort is recognized in Pennsylvania, plaintiffs’ complaint is clearly one for false arrest. Defendant’s contentions should more appropriately be asserted at time of trial, particularly with regard to issue of damages.

ORDER

And now, December 9, 1974, it is ordered that defendant’s preliminary objections to plaintiffs’ complaint are dismissed and defendant is hereby given 20 days to plead to the said complaint.

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

CIPRIANI, J.,

Defendant, Hertz Corporation, had reported one of its rental vehicles stolen. It was retrieved but defendant is accused of failing to take reasonable steps to notify the police. As a result, plaintiffs, who rented the vehicle from defendant were thereafter arrested.

Defendant in his preliminary objections argues that plaintiff has failed to state a cause of action in that there can be no recovery for negligently inflicting mental distress. While no such tort is recognized in Pennsylvania, plaintiffs’ complaint is clearly one for false arrest. Defendant’s contentions should more appropriately be asserted at time of trial, particularly with regard to issue of damages.

ORDER

And now, December 9, 1974, it is ordered that defendant’s preliminary objections to plaintiffs’ complaint are dismissed and defendant is hereby given 20 days to plead to the said complaint.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

69 Pa. D. & C.2d 254, 1974 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 221, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wax-v-hertz-corp-pactcomplphilad-1974.