source: Caselaw Access Project

author: POPOVICH, Judge:

license: Public Domain

text:
    471 A.2d 490
    COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Richard RIELAND a/k/a Reiland, Appellant.
    Superior Court of Pennsylvania.
    Submitted Sept. 30, 1983.
    Filed Jan. 13, 1984.

      David G. Metinko, Assistant Public Defender, Pittsburgh, for appellant.
    Robert L. Eberhardt, Deputy District Attorney, Pittsburgh, for Commonwealth, appellee.
    Before WICKERSHAM, ROWLEY and POPOVICH, JJ.
   POPOVICH, Judge:

On July 17, 1981, a jury found appellant, Richard Rieland, guilty of burglary theft by unlawful taking or disposition , receiving stolen property, and criminal conspiracy. Post-trial motions were filed and denied. On November 10, 1981, appellant was sentenced to two and one-half to five years imprisonment for burglary. Sentence was suspended on the remaining counts. This appeal followed. We affirm.

On appeal, appellant contests only his conspiracy conviction and raises three issues relating thereto. They include:

(1) Did the trial court err in refusing to suppress appellant’s confession, when it was given involuntarily?
(2) Did the trial court err in permitting the introduction of appellant’s confession without independently establishing the corpus delicti of the crime?
(3) Was the evidence insufficient to support the criminal conspiracy conviction?

The first issue was argued at a pre-trial suppression hearing, at trial and in post-verdict motions. Without stating its reasons, the suppression court denied appellant’s motion to suppress. Another Common Pleas Court criminal division judge presided at appellant’s trial, and allowed the voluntariness question to be submitted to the jury. The two police officers who were interviewing appellant when he incriminated himself testified that appellant was not coerced into making an inculpatory statement. The jury resolved this question against appellant, obviously believing the officers’ testimony. Where a trial court has held a statement to be voluntary, the review on appeal must be limited to a consideration of the testimony of the Commonwealth’s witnesses and that portion of the testimony for the appellant which remains uncontradicted. See Commonwealth v. Smith, 487 Pa. 626, 410 A.2d 787 (1980). In addition, “[i]t is the province of the trier of facts to pass upon the credibility of witnesses and the weight to be accorded the evidence produced.” Commonwealth v. Murray, 460 Pa. 605, 609, 334 A.2d 255, 257 (1975). In light of the evidence produced at trial, we find no error in the lower court’s denial of appellant’s motion to suppress.

With regard to the second issue raised by appellant, appellant argues that he should not have been convicted of conspiracy solely on the basis of his inculpatory statement. In Pennsylvania, the extra-judicial admissions or confessions of an accused are sufficient to convict if the corpus delicti has been established by independent proof before the extra-judicial statement of the accused is entered into evidence. See Commonwealth v. Turza, 340 Pa. 128, 16 A.2d 401 (1940). There are two elements to a corpus delicti: (1) that a loss or injury has occurred; (2) that the loss or injury occurred through a criminal agency. Id., 340 Pa. at 134, 16 A.2d at 404. The identity of the party responsible for the act is not an element of the corpus delicti. Commonwealth v. Butts, 204 Pa.Super. 302, 204 A.2d 481 (1964). The corpus delicti may be proved by circumstantial evidence, but that evidence must be “sufficient to convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that the crime charged was committed by someone.” Commonwealth v. Lettrich, 346 Pa. 497, 31 A.2d 155 (1943). This does not mean, however, that the Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a crime was committed; it is enough fqr the Commonwealth to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the injury or loss is consistent with the crime having been committed. Commonwealth v. Rhoads, 225 Pa.Super. 208, 213, 310 A.2d 406, 409 (1973).

The court below held that because the corpus delicti of the crime of burglary had been established, appellant’s confession that he and another man committed the crime, was properly admitted into evidence. Appellant maintains that the trial court erroneously equated the presentation of evidence sufficient to establish the corpus delicti of the crime of burglary with that sufficient to establish the corpus delicti of the crime of conspiracy. Appellant relies on Commonwealth v. Byrd, 490 Pa. 544, 417 A.2d 173 (1980), for the proposition that independent evidence of a criminal agreement is necessary to establish the corpus delicti of conspiracy, before an inculpatory statement can be introduced into evidence. In Byrd, supra, the appellant, Haddrick Byrd, had been convicted of second degree murder, robbery and conspiracy. The robbery and conspiracy convictions rested primarily on an inculpatory statement made by appellant to a Commonwealth witness while appellant was incarcerated pending trial on unrelated charges. Mr. Byrd challenged his convictions for robbery and conspiracy on the ground that the corpus delicti of neither crime was established prior to the introduction of his inculpatory statement. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, holding that the Commonwealth had produced sufficient independent evidence of both robbery and conspiracy.

In the instant case, appellant would have us interpret Byrd, supra, as precluding a conviction for conspiracy, based on a defendant’s inculpatory statement, without independent evidence of a criminal agreement. This we cannot do, as Byrd is distinguishable on its facts. In Byrd, witnesses testified that Byrd and another man had entered a synagogue, stared fixedly at the congregation’s safe, left together and returned together minutes later armed with a weapon. Independent evidence also established that one of the men shot and killed a congregant, and that the two men then fled together. Because of its disposition of the case, the Supreme Court in Byrd did not decide the issue presented by appellant in the instant case, that is, whether a defendant can be convicted of the inchoate crime of conspiracy on the basis of his inculpatory statement alone, when the corpus delicti of the substantive offense of burglary has been established.

The Commonwealth contends that Commonwealth v. Stokes, 225 Pa.Super. 411, 311 A.2d 714 (1973), is dispositive of the instant issue. In Stokes, supra, appellant was convicted of carrying a concealed deadly weapon, playfully or wantonly pointing a firearm, and attempt with intent to kill. The testimony at trial was summarized as follows:

“When two police officers entered an apartment at the request of the tenant, they observed appellant in the bedroom pointing a rifle at them. As the officers retreated from the apartment, one officer fired a shot. Venturing back in, the officers saw appellant ‘raising his rifle again.’ Appellant closed the bedroom door. The officers called for reinforcements, and when these arrived, appellant threw out his rifle and surrendered.”

Id., 225 Pa.Superior Ct. at 413, 311 A.2d at 715. Although this testimony constituted sufficient evidence to sustain a conviction of pointing a firearm, “a conviction of attempt with intent to kill required proof of ‘drawing a trigger or in any other manner ... attempting] to discharge’ the rifle.” Id. This additional proof was supplied by appellant’s inculpatory statement to police. We held that the statement was admissible because the Commonwealth had established the crime of pointing a firearm, and because the two crimes charged arose from a single transaction and had in common the element of pointing a firearm at someone. Our rationale was stated by Judge Spaeth as follows:

“[B]y proving the crime of pointing a firearm, the Commonwealth provided sufficient protection against ‘the hasty and unguarded character ... often attached to confessions’, Commonwealth v. Turza, supra [340 Pa.] at 134, 16 A.2d at 404, to entitle it to offer the confession of attempt with intent to kill.”

Id., 225 Pa.Superior Ct. at 415, 311 A.2d at 716.

We agree with the Commonwealth, and find the reasoning in Stokes, supra, persuasive in resolving the question presented herein. The crimes of burglary and conspiracy arose from a common transaction, albeit not exactly a singular transaction as in Stokes. In Byrd, supra, the Supreme Court specifically noted that “the reason for the corpus delicti rule is to prevent conviction where no crime has been committed.” (Emphasis added) Byrd, supra, 490 Pa. at 557 n. 7, 417 A.2d at 180 n. 7. Because the Commonwealth established the corpus delicti of the crime of burglary, admission of appellant’s statement that he was involved in a criminal conspiracy to effectuate that crime would in no way defeat the purpose of the corpus delicti rule. Therefore, we hold that when the corpus delicti of burglary is established, an inculpatory statement which proves a criminal conspiracy is admissible despite the absence of independent evidence of the criminal agreement.

Appellant’s third contention of error, that the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction for criminal conspiracy, is premised on the belief that admission of the inculpatory statement was erroneous. Because of our disposition of the first two issues presented, this contention is meritless.

For the above-stated reasons, judgment of sentence is affirmed.

      . 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3502.

      . 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3921.

      . 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3925.

      . 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 903.

      . *‘[T]he courts of this Commonwealth have recognized that the conviction for which a judgment of sentence has-been suspended is appealable. See Commonwealth v. Elias, 394 Pa. 639, 642, 149 A.2d 53, 55 (1959) (citing cases); Commonwealth v. Meszaros, 194 Pa.Super. 462, 466, 168 A.2d 781, 783 (1961); Commonwealth v. Tluchak, 166 Pa.Super. 16, 21, 70 A.2d 657, 660 (1950)."

        Commonwealth v. Walls, 303 Pa.Super. 284, 449 A.2d 690 (1982).


author: HESTER, Judge: WICKERSHAM, Judge,

text:
    471 A.2d 493
    David and Thelma CATHCART, Appellants, v. KEENE INDUSTRIAL INSULATION, Amatex, Southern Asbestos, Nicolet Industries, Delaware Asbestos and Rubber Co., Johns-Manville, Raybestos-Manhattan, Philip Carey, Owens-Corning Fiberglas, Pittsburgh Corning, Philadelphia Asbestos, Ehret, Baldwin-Hill, Ehret Baldwin-Hill, United Asbestos and Rubber Co. (UNARCO), Pabco Industrial Products Division, GAF, H.K. Porter, J.P. Stevens, Certain-Teed Products Corp., Eagle-Picher Forty-Eight Insulation, Asbestos Textile Co., John Doe; David and Thelma CATHCART, Appellants, v. JOHNS-MANVILLE CORPORATION, Johns-Manville Sales Corporation, Raybestos-Manhattan, Forty-Eight Insulation, Nicolet Industries, Pittsburgh Corning Corporation, GAF, Armstrong Cork Co., UNARCO Industries, H.K. Porter Co., Southern Asbestos Company, Eagle-Picher, Delaware Asbestos & Rubber Co., Fibreboard Corp., Pabco Industrial Products Division, Keene Corp., Glen Alden, Rapid American, Turner & Newall, Keasbey & Mattison Co., Certain-Teed Products Corp., U.S. Rubber Co., Inc., Philip Carey Manufacturing Co., Asbestos Textile Institute, Uni-Royal Inc., Carolina Asbestos Co., J. Franklin Burke Co., General Asbestos Co., Asbestos Textile Co., Thermoid Company, Astenhill Manufacturing Co., Ruberoid Company.
    Superior Court of Pennsylvania.
    Argued April 25, 1983.
    Filed Jan. 13, 1984.
    Petition for Allowance of Appeal Denied April 30, 1984.

      Joseph D. Shein and Robert E. Paul, Philadelphia, for appellants.
    Charles J. Kolinoski, Philadelphia, for appellees.
    Before CERCONE, President Judge, and SPAETH, HESTER, CAVANAUGH, WICKERSHAM, WIEAND and HOFFMAN, JJ.
   HESTER, Judge:

Appellants, David and Thelma Cathcart, brought suit on February 6, 1976, at No. 923 February Term, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the 1976 action) against the following thirty-one defendants (listed alphabetically), by filing a Writ of Summons in Trespass: Amatex Corp.; American Textile; Asbestos Textile Corp.; Baldwin Hill; Benjamin Foster Div. of Amchem Products, Inc.; Carey; Carolina Narrow Fabric Co.; Certain-Teed Products Corp.; Delaware Asbestos and Rubber Co.; Eagle-Picher Industries, Inc.; Eastern Refractory, Inc.; Ehret; Ehret Baldwin Hill; Forty-Eight Insulation Inc.; GAF Corp.; Grant Wilson; Janos Asbestos; Johns-Manville; Keene Industrial Insulation; Nicolet Industries; Owens-Corning, Pabco Industrial Products Division; Pars Manufacturing; Philadelphia Asbestos; Pittsburgh Corning; H.K. Porter Co.; Raybestos-Manhattan; Southern Asbestos; J.P. Stevens; Taylored Industries; and United Asbestos and Rubber Co. (UNARCO). Appellants also named “John Doe” in an apparent attempt to preserve the right to later name other defendants who were unknown at the time. The action was filed against these various defendants because it was thought that they might have supplied asbestos products to appellant David Cathcart’s place of employment, the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard, and thus have contributed to Mr. Cathcart’s contraction of asbestosis and other related diseases. GAF, Owens-Corning, and Pars accepted service of the summons. Appellants did not formally effect service upon the other defendants, although UN ARCO took action which indicated that it was submitting to the jurisdiction of the court, and counsel entered appearances on behalf of Amatex and Certain-Teed.

On September 5, 1978, appellants filed a complaint at a new number, No. 88 (123) September Term, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the 1978 action) against thirty-one defendants, sixteen of which had also been named in the 1976 action: Asbestos Textile Company; Philip Carey Manufacturing Co.; Certain Teed Products Corporation; Delaware Asbestos and Rubber Co.; Eagle Picher Industries, Inc.; Forty-Eight Insulation, Inc.; GAF Corporation; JohnsManville Corporation; Keene Corporation; Nicolet Industries, Inc.; Fibreboard Corporation, Pabco Industrial Products Division; Pittsburgh Corning Corporation; H.K. Porter Co., Inc.; Raybestos Manhattan, Inc.; Southern Asbestos Company; and UN ARCO Industries, Inc. Fifteen of the defendants were named for the first time: Armstrong Cork Company; Asbestos Textile Institute, Inc.; Asten Hill Manufacturing Co.; J. Franklin Burke Co.; Carolina Asbestos Co.; General Asbestos Co.; Glen Alden, Inc.; Keasbey Mattison Co.; Johns-Manville Sales Corporation; Rapid American, Inc.; Ruberoid Company, Inc.; Thermoid Co.; Turner Newall, Ltd.; Uni-Royal, Inc.; and U.S. Rubber Co. Inc. Owens-Corning and Janos, both of which had been named in the 1976 action and had accepted service of the summons, were not named in the 1978 action. Amatex, on whose behalf an appearance had been entered by counsel in the 1976 action, was similarly not named as a defendant in the 1978 action.

In January, 1978, Pars ruled the plaintiffs to file a complaint in the 1976 case, and when the plaintiffs failed to file a complaint, obtained a judgment of non pros. On September 25, 1980, defendant Raybestos filed a motion for summary judgment in the 1978 action “on behalf of all defendants except Owens Corning Fiberglass Corporation and GAF Corporation.” On October 1, 1980, Pittsburgh Corning filed a motion for summary judgment in the 1978 action “in favor of all defendants, against the plaintiffs.” Motions for summary judgment were also filed in the same case within the next four months by Pacor, Keene, and Eagle-Picher. All of the defendants named in the 1976 action evidently filed motions for non pros of the 1976 action in November, 1980, although there is no record on the docket of such filing. On January 2, 1981, the plaintiffs finally filed a complaint in the 1976 case. On April 30, 1981, the lower court issued an opinion and order non-prossing the 1976 case as to all named defendants except Owens-Corning, Amatex, GAF, Certain-Teed, and UNARCO. On the same date, the lower court also issued an opinion and order in the 1978 case, granting summary judgment and dismissing Thelma Cathcart’s claim for emotional distress as to all defendants, denying summary judgment as to GAF, Certain-Teed, and UNARCO on David Cathcart’s claims and on Thelma Cathcart’s consortium claim, and granting summary judgment in favor of the remaining twenty-eight defendants as to David Cathcart’s claims and Thelma Cathcart’s consortium claim. The plaintiffs filed timely notices of appeal in both actions.

A court properly enters a judgment of non pros when a party to the proceedings has shown a want of due diligence by failing to proceed with reasonable promptitude, when there has been no compelling reason for the delay, and when the delay has caused some prejudice to the adverse party. Carter v. Amick, 246 Pa.Super. 530, 534, 371 A.2d 961, 963 (1977). In the case before us, in ruling on the defendants’ motions for non-pros of the 1976 action, the lower court held that appellants had not abandoned their claims as to any of the defendants. The lower court also ruled that appellants had not delayed unreasonably with respect to GAF, UNARCO, Certain-Teed, Amatex, and Owens-Corning, since these five defendants had been made parties to the 1976 action, and since there had been activity by appellants (filing a complaint, albeit at a different number and adding many new parties, petitioning to consolidate the 1976. and 1978 actions," and engaging in substantial discovery) which indicated that they were pursuing the 1976 action. With respect to the remaining twenty-five defendants , the lower court found: 1) that appellants had delayed unreasonably in prosecuting their case by not taking any action from the time that they initiated suit in February, 1976, until they attempted to serve copies of a complaint in January, 1981, a period of almost five years; 2) that appellants’ delay “was the result of an effort to save costs” and was “inexcusable”; and 3) that the twenty-five defendants had been prejudiced (although the lower court was not clear as to what the prejudice actually was). Appellants do not challenge these findings.

In arriving at its conclusion that the plaintiffs had delayed unreasonably in waiting almost five years after initiating their suit until attempting to bring the twenty-five defendants within the court’s jurisdiction, the court made a “preliminary determination” that twenty-five of the defendants had not waived service of process or subjected themselves to the court’s jurisdiction. It is this portion of the lower court’s findings that appellants dispute. Appellants argue that the twenty-five defendants waived the right to challenge personal jurisdiction because of participation of counsel in court conferences, in the work of a defense counsel committee, and in the drafting of interrogatories which were served upon appellants, and because the defendants received and benefited from answers to interrogatories. Appellants argue that the twenty-five defendants fall into the same category as the remaining five defendants, and therefore should not have had non pros granted in their favor.

The case before us is one of many asbestos cases filed by the law firm which represents the Cathcarts. The first of these suits will be referred to herein as Dellamo. On May 19, 1976, a preliminary conference was held pursuant to notice issued under the Dellamo caption. The court noted on the record that the defense attorneys

are here informally. Some of them have indicated they are here on behalf of a client with regard to a specific action, and with respect to any other action against that client, they may or may not be here, and this is purely, if I understand correctly, a courtesy to the Court that they are here discussing the matters in a general fashion.
Mr. Shields, Mr. Sprecher, may represent a given client in a given plaintiffs action, but given another plaintiff, the carrier may be different. The representation may be different. And, these gentlemen are not in a position to bind themselves in that fashion____

The court was careful to point out that if defendants “have not been served, they are not before [the Court].” At a hearing held on September 13, 1976, on the plaintiffs’ Petition for Leave to Serve Summons by Registered Mail, the lower court again pointed out:

I do not presently have before [me] any party or parties except those as to whom Complaint or writs have been issued and/or served. I have only putative defendants as to all other potential defendants as to whom writs have been issued, but have not heretofore been served upon them. Any Order that I would enter ... would have no judicial effect upon anybody except those persons who are — or, parties who are — presently in a formal sense subject to the jurisdiction of the Court.
Any Order that I would enter as to those who have been named but never have submitted voluntarily to the jurisdiction of the Court or who have not appeared in some other fashion or have been properly served in accordance with the statutory proceeding are nothing more than putative defendants____

The lower court thus made it perfectly clear that no defendants were waiving personal jurisdiction by appearing at the conferences.

With regard to the interrogatories, the lower court’s order of July 21, 1977 stated: “Service by the Committee of Counsel, or sub-committee designated thereby of such standard set of interrogatories upon the Committee of Counsel for the adversary parties shall be deemed to be service upon all counsel of record for the respective parties.” (Emphasis added). The interrogatories filed under the Dellamo caption included the following language: “[Pjlaintiff shall answer these interrogatories notwithstanding the status of actual service on each of the named defendants and without the waiver of service by each of the same defendants.”

It is well-established that a party may waive objections to personal jurisdiction by consenting to the court’s authority. Radakovich v. Weisman, 241 Pa.Super. 35, 41, 359 A.2d 426, 429 (1976). For a waiver to occur, a party must take some action (beyond merely entering a written appearance) going to the merits of the case, which evidences an intent to forego objection to the defective service. O’Barto v. Glossers Stores, Inc., 228 Pa.Super. 201, 205, 324 A.2d 474, 476 (1974). It seems clear to us that the defendants and the lower court were careful to avoid waiving the defendants’ right to personal service. We agree with the lower court that the twenty-five defendants did not submit to the jurisdiction of the court in the 1976 action.

Pennsylvania’s statute of limitations for personal injury cases is two years. Evidently in an effort to ameliorate the sometimes-harsh effects of the statute, Pennsylvania courts have adopted what has come to be known as the “discovery rule.” Where this rule is applied, the statute of limitations will not begin to run until the plaintiff has discovered his injury, or, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, should have discovered his injury. See Schaffer v. Larzelere, 410 Pa. 402, 189 A.2d 267 (1963). See Smith v. Bell Telephone Co., 397 Pa. 134, 153 A.2d 477 (1959), and Lewey v. Fricke Coke Co., 166 Pa. 536, 31 A. 261 (1895), involving subterranean rights. See Ayers v. Morgan, 397 Pa. 282, 154 A.2d 788 (1959), involving medical malpractice. The discovery rule was recently applied by a panel of our Court in Staiano v. Johns-Manville Corp., 304 Pa.Super. 280, 450 A.2d 681 (1982). In Staiano, the panel approved a variation of the discovery rule which was articulated in Volpe v. Johns-Manville Corp., 4 Phila. County Reporter 290. Under this “Volpe test,” three independent phases of knowledge must be known or knowable to a plaintiff before the statute of limitations begins to run: (1) knowledge of the injury, (2) knowledge of the operative cause of the injury, and (3) knowledge of the causative relationship between the injury and the operative conduct. Although the Volpe test has a nice “ring” to it, it unnecessarily complicates the question of when the statute begins to run. For instance, what does “operative” in “operative cause” mean, and can it be possible for a plaintiff to know the “operative cause” of his injury yet not know the relationship between the “operative conduct” and the injury? The discovery rule has been stated in an understandable manner by our Su-, preme Court, and we see no reason to complicate the law by adopting a modified version of the rule for cases involving diseases contracted from exposure to hazardous substances. We find that the statute of limitations begins to run in “creeping disease” cases when the- plaintiff knows, or reasonably should know: (1) that he has been injured, and (2) that his injury has been caused by another party’s conduct. Stating the test in this manner will result in conformity with various other jurisdictions which have addressed this same problem.

As noted previously, appellants filed a second suit in 1978, naming fifteen of the defendants for the first time. The lower court granted summary judgment in favor of these fifteen defendants (as well as thirteen of the sixteen that had been named in both the 1976 and 1978 actions), finding that the statute of limitations barred suit against them. Appellants argue on appeal that, “[s]ince the difficulties in identifying all the defendants are so great..., [appellants] should be permitted to proceed against a defendant whenever identified.” In other words, appellants argue that the statute of limitations did not commence running against defendants until they were identified as having supplied asbestos to David Cathcart’s place of employment. We disagree.

In Keating v. Zemel, 281 Pa.Super. 129, 421 A.2d 1181 (1980), a medical malpractice case, a panel of our Court was faced with the issue that now confronts us. In that case, the lower court found that an amended complaint filed against the third of three defendants was filed untimely. Our Court affirmed, noting that the plaintiff, exercising reasonable diligence, would unquestionably have been able to identify the third defendant as the party who had left a tube inside the plaintiff. In Staiano, supra, an asbestos case, the appellants argued that the statute of limitations did not begin to run until they knew “the proper parties to sue” and “the identities of other potential defendants.” A panel of our Court rejected this argument, stating: “Here it is enough that the appellant-husband knew that his asbestosis was caused by the inhalation of asbestos dust emanating from asbestos products on the work site. We find no reason to postpone the commencement of the statute until a plaintiff has in addition discovered who manufactured the products that he knows have injured him.” Similarly, in the case before us, by using reasonable diligence, appellants could have determined the names of the parties that had provided the asbestos.

Appellants contend that Grubb v. Albert Einstein Medical Center, 255 Pa.Super. 381, 387 A.2d 480 (1978), supports their position. Grubb is indeed troublesome. In Grubb, the plaintiff had been rendered quadriplegic during an operation for a herniated cervical disc. She brought suit against the hospital and against her doctors, who joined the manufacturer (Stryker Corporation) of an allegedly defective bone plug cutter which had been used in the operation. The manufacturer was joined two years and thirteen days after the date of the operation, yet the court held that the manufacturer had been joined within the statutory period, stating: “We find no evidence in the record to indicate that Mrs. Grubb was in a position on December 2, 1964, while still a paralyzed patient at Albert Einstein Medical Center to determine the causal relationship between her injuries and the Stryker plug cutter.” 255 Pa.Super. at 399, 387 A.2d at 489.

Staiano distinguished Grubb, stating that what tolled the statute of limitations in Grubb was that the plaintiff had not known, and could not reasonably have been expected to find out, that a defective surgical instrument of any manufacturer had caused her injury. Keating observed that Grubb “is not entirely clear.” We note that Grubb was a Per Curiam Opinion, in which five of the six sitting judges concurred rather than joined. Although we do not find that Grubb was wrongly decided, we believe that it should be limited to its facts.

We agree with the court in Huber v. McElwee-Courbis Const., 392 F.Supp. 1379, 1383 (E.D.Pa.1974) that the burden is on the injured party, once he discovers the cause of his injuries, whether it be a specific event such as an unsuccessful operation or a hazardous condition such as asbestos in a person’s place of employment, to determine within the statutory period (unless there is fraud or concealment) the party or parties whose negligence or breach of duty was responsible for the event or the condition. We find in the case before us that an allegation of mere difficulty in identifying defendants was not sufficient to toll the running of the statute of limitations as to those defendants in the 1978 case that had not been named in the 1976 action.

Appellants argue that those 1978 defendants who were named but not served in the 1976 case are not entitled to summary judgment in the 1978 case, merely because they were named in the 1976 case. Appellants do not explain this argument or cite any cases in support of it. We therefore dismiss this argument without further discussion.

Appellants would have us find that the lower court erred “in failing to follow the cases that state that the statute of limitations does not begin to run until the plaintiff knows the full nature and extent of his injury including its permanency and learns he has a permanent, as contrasted with a temporary,- injury.” Appellants cite two cases, Acker v. Patena, 260 Pa.Super. 214, 393 A.2d 1230 (1978), and Mitchell v. Hendricks, 431 F.Supp. 1295 (E.D.Pa.1977), in support of this argument. In Acker, the statute of limitations did not begin to run at the time of surgery for a detached retina, because the plaintiff was told that her problem had been corrected and that her vision would return. The plaintiff was not aware that she had been injured by the first physician (whether by incorrect procedure or by misdiagnosis), until she consulted a second physician, who informed her that she had a ruptured sclera which would require surgical removal of the eye. Mitchell similarly involved improper procedure or misdiagnosis which resulted in the plaintiffs condition becoming permanent. These cases simply do not stand for the proposition advanced by appellants. It is not, as appellants contend, that the statute of limitations did not begin to run in each case until the plaintiff knew that the injury was permanent, but rather that the actionable injury was the aggravation of an existing injury, making it permanent. In other words, there was no actionable wrong at all until the defendant made the injury more serious or permanent. Such a situation must be distinguished from one such as in the case before us, in which an injury occurs, purportedly as the result of someone’s negligence, and grows increasingly worse because of the nature of the injury rather than because of someone’s further action or inaction.

Appellants argue that the trial court erred in determining that the statute of limitations on Thelma Cathcart’s claim for loss of consortium began to run on the same date that her husband’s personal injury claim began to run. In Staiano, 304 Pa.Super. at 282, 450 A.2d at 682, a panel of this Court held that a wife’s claim for loss of consortium depended on her husband’s claim for purposes of the statute of limitations. The lower court in the case before us properly granted summary judgment against Mrs. Cathcart on this claim.

Appellants contend that a jury should have been permitted to determine the date that the statute of limitations began to run. Whether the statute of limitations has run on a claim is usually a question of law for the judge; however, at times, a factual determination by the jury may be required. Smith v. Bell Telephone Co., 397 Pa. at 142, 153 A.2d at 481. In the case before us, David Cathcart indicated in his deposition that he was aware, at least by the early part of 1976, that he had contracted asbestosis through exposure to asbestos at his place of employment:

“Q. Who is Dr. Marshall? Dr. Wayne Marshall?
A. I was sent to him from the Navy Yard.
Q. The Navy Yard sent you to him?
A. Yes.
Q. When did the Navy Yard send you to him?
A. It must have been around ’73, ’74.
Q. And, what did Dr. Marshall do for you?
A. Well, he examined me, breathing and everything. And, he put me in the hospital for three days. He started putting tubes, lights down my throat and everything. And he found out there was something wrong with the inside of my lung. And, I stayed there and they gave me other — I took all kinds of x-rays and everything. I must have had about fifteen x-rays or more. I stayed there for three days until they got all done with them. And, he was the one that sent the letter to the shipyard.
Q. Oh, he sent a letter to the shipyard?
A. Yea, total disability.
Q. To tell them you had a disability?
A. I was in California working. I didn’t think he was going to let me, leave me go down. They must have overlooked it. I went in, I went down and in three weeks they called me back____
Q. Now, they called you back and you went to the Navy Yard?
A. They called me back.
Q. And, somebody gave you a letter from Dr. Marshall?
A. Our master went upstairs and got it and brought it down.
Q. And, he gave you the letter from Dr. Marshall?

A. He read it off to me and kept the letter. Well, he did give me the letter.

Q. Did he also read it to you?
A. Yea, he read it off.
Q.' And, who’s Foochie?
A. He’s the quarterman.
Q. You gave Foochie the letter?
A. Yes, he read it and he gave me what they called — if you want to go home, if you’re sick or anything, they write out a sick pass. They send you home. That’s what it must have been like, you know, I was sick. They sent me home that night. That was the last I worked. I didn’t work no more.
Q. Why could [sic] you work?
A. He wouldn’t let me work. I don’t know. The letter says total disability whatever it was, he wouldn’t let me work.
Q. What was your disability?
A. Well, at that time, he sent in asbestosis lung. That’s what Dr. Marshall had on the letter.
Q. So, your disability was asbestosis of the lung?
A. That’s what he said. He had it on the letter. What’s what he took to the shipyard.
Q. That’s what Dr. Marshall had on the letter?
A. Yes. That’s what he had on the letter? I also was over to the Naval Hospital, the doctors over there. They said I had something wrong with my lung, inside of my lung, the Naval Hospital.
Q. That last day, the day you’re talking about that you had the letter and they called you back, was that July of ’75?
A. It was in ’75, now when it was I don’t know, I don’t know just what month it was.
Q. Was it in the summer time?
A. Yea, it was in the warm weather.
Q. You worked your last day, then did you see Dr. Marshall again?
A. Yea, I went to him a couple of times for him to look at me and everything. Then they sent me to Commonwealth to see what they thought of me, to see if I had it or not.. And, they found the same thing inside of my lung, something was wrong with it. And, they kept going from one to the other, x-rays, x-rays, x-rays.
Q. When you were examined by Dr. Marshall when you were in the hospital, let’s see, that was in Pennsylvania Hospital, wasn’t it?
A. Yes, I must have had about twenty x-rays or more.
Q. You were in there — would it have been June of 1975; is that what you remember?
A. Around about that time.
Q. What’s when you had all those tests done?
A. Yes.
Q. Did anybody tell you how you got asbestosis?
A. No, nobody told me.
Q. Did you talk to Dr.—
A. Not until I found out on television what it comes from and all.
Q. When was that?
A. I think they advertised on television about ’75 or something like that.
Q. About 1975?
A. Yes.
Q. When you saw that, what did you learn from that?
A. They told you — they told you then it was cancer. They told me down the yard it was asbestosis lung. Something wrong with the inside of it. That’s what I took, but I didn’t know what it was until I heard it on television. They said it was cancer.
Q. Did you understand how you had gotten asbestosis of the lung?
A. Well, afterward, we found out it was from working around the asbestos down in the fire rooms and engine rooms.
Q. When did you find that out?
A. Well, I didn’t find that out until after they found out what was wrong with my lung on the inside, before I found out how I got it. I didn’t know. How would I know I had it.
Q. Yes, you found out you had asbestosis of the lung and when you stopped working when you did find out that you had gotten asbestosis of the lung because you had worked with asbestos?
A. How did I know I got it from working with asbestose [sic]?
Q. When did you find that out.
A. After they — after they found out that I had it.
Q. Can you tell me about when that was?
A. Well, it was in ’75 when I left the shipyard. It was that year. I mean it was in a couple of months or so.
Q. Within a couple of months—
A. When you took x-rays of my chest.
Q. So—
A. Down there.
Q. So, within a couple of months after you left the shipyard?
A. That I found out what it was, you know, I mean how I got it, from asbestos.
Q. Did you take any papers to Dr. Murray to have him fill out so you could get compensation?
A. No.
Q. Do you remember when you went to see Mr. Brook-man, when you first went to see Mr. Brookman?
A. That’s when I — ’74, ’75, when I read it in the paper about this here asbestos and stuff.
Q. Was this after you had stopped working?
A. Oh, yea.
Q. About how soon after you had stopped working?
A. I guess about six months or so!
Q. About six months after you stopped working?
A. Six months or so, yea.
Q. And, that was after you read about it in the paper?
A. Yea, read about it, what came out in the paper about this asbestosis and cancer and all. And, it was on television.
Q. What did you read in the paper and see on television about asbestos; do you remember?
A. I guess it was about, as I say, it was about six months after I got out.
Q. Do you remember what you read, what you heard about it?
A. They said about this asbestosis lung. They say it comes from asbestos from, you know what I mean, from asbestos. What they use on the ships.
Q. It comes from working with asbestos?
A. Yea. That’s what it comes from. So, that’s how I found out about it.
Q. And, you read about this and you—
A. It was in the papers, it was in the newspapers and it was also on television.
Q. And, then you went to see Mr. Brookman after you learned that?
A. Yea. After I heard about it.”

It is clear from David Cathcart’s deposition testimony that he learned in the summer of 1975 that he had asbestosis, and that he found out at least by February, 1976 (when his attorneys filed a writ of summons on his behalf) that he had contracted the disease by working with asbestos at the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard. The affidavit filed by David Cathcart in response to the motions for summary judgment is consistent with his testimony, for it indicates that “he was told he had asbestosis lung in 1975,” and “he did not learn for several months anything about his condition or its cause.”

Summary judgment is provided for by Pa.R.C.P. No. 1035. Part (b) of the rule states that summary judgment shall be rendered “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Part (d) of the rule provides:

When a motion for summary judgment is made and supported as provided in this rule, an adverse party may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials or his pleading, but his response, by affidavits or as otherwise provided in this rule, must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. If he does not respond, summary judgment, if appropriate, shall be entered against him.

In determining whether there is a genuine issue of fact, the court must take the view of the evidence most favorable to the non-moving party, and any doubts must be resolved against the entry of the judgment. Husak v. Berkel, Inc., 234 Pa.Super. 452, 458, 341 A.2d 174, 177 (1975). We find that there was sufficient basis for the lower court’s determination of when the statute of limitations began to run in the case before us, and we find no question of fact which would have required a jury’s resolution.

Appellants further argue that since their injuries are continuing ones, the portion of their injuries that occurred within two years of the filing of the complaint is not barred by the statute of limitations. Appellants rely on Daniels v. Beryllium, 211 F.Supp. 452 (E.D.Pa.1962), and on certain language in footnote 3 in Shadle v. Pearce, 287 Pa.Super. 436, 441, 430 A.2d 683, 686 (1981), as support for this argument. In Daniels, plaintiff Mary Daniels contracted beryllium poisoning, allegedly as the result of pollution caused by the defendant manufacturer. Interpreting the sparse Pennsylvania Law on the subject, the federal district court held that the claim for damages attributable to- exposure which occurred more than two years prior to the daté of commencement of the suit was barred by the statute of limitations, but that a claim for aggravation of the disease by additional poisoning within two years prior to commencement of the suit would not be barred. The court held that to find otherwise would, in effect, be granting the defendant a prescriptive right to further contaminate the plaintiffs lungs. We agree with the decision in Daniels; however, it is clearly distinguishable from the case now before us. In Daniels, the court was concerned with discouraging continuing tortious conduct, rather than attempting to extend the statutory period for bringing claims for continuing injuries. This distinction was not lost on the panel of our court that decided Shadle, for the panel, citing Daniels, noted in footnote three: “[TJhere was no allegation of a continuing tort by the Defendant in this case which aggravated the Plaintiffs condition so as to permit him to recover for harm suffered during the two year period immediately preceding his institution of suit.” (Emphasis added). 287 Pa.Super. at 441, 430 A.2d at 686. Appellants in the case before us have not alleged that tortious conduct of the defendants has occurred during the two years prior to filing of the complaint, and we find that the fact that the injuries are continuing ones, caused by the continuous action of asbestos fibers in their bodies, is not sufficient to toll the limitations period for any aggravation of their injuries.

A determination was made in 1977 that appellant David Cathcart had pleural thickening, a disease arguably different from asbestosis. Appellants contend that the statute of limitations for this new injury should begin to run from the time that they discovered or should have discovered this new injury and its cause, and not, as the lower court determined, from the time that they discovered the source of the asbestosis. As support for this position, appellants cite Shadle, supra, and Bayless v. Philadelphia National League Club, 579 F.2d 37 (3rd Cir.1978).

In Bayless, a baseball player for the Philadelphia Phillies suffered a back injury, had various drugs administered to him by the team trainer, and developed complications, including a mental disease (paranoid schizophrenia). More than five years after receiving the drugs, the plaintiff brought suit in Federal District Court against the baseball club. The Federal District Court treated the case as involving two separate injuries, and ruled that both were barred by the statute of limitations. Only the portion of the lower court’s order barring the claim for the mental disease injury was appealed. The circuit court on appeal stated that its task was to decide when the limitations period commenced to run. The circuit court, properly applying existing Pennsylvania law, ruled that the limitations period began to run from the time that the plaintiff knew or should reasonably have known the cause of his injury. Since it found that there existed a question of fact as to when the plaintiff knew or should have known the source of his mental disease, the circuit court reversed the grant of summary judgment, and remanded the case for further proceedings. The court did not consider the specific question of whether a second related injury should be treated differently for statute of limitations purposes. In Shadle, our Court did deal with this specific question.

In Shadle, a dentist’s failure to properly treat an abscessed tooth evidently caused the plaintiff to develop a heart condition known as bacterial endocarditis. When a valve transplant operation resulted in the plaintiff’s apparent complete recovery, he decided not to sue the dentist. More than two years after the plaintiff learned that the dentist’s negligence had caused his initial problem, the plaintiff developed an aortic aneurysm, which was evidently secondary to the valve transplant, and which rendered him totally incapacitated. In holding the claim for the second injury barred by the statute of limitations, the panel stated: “If we were to hold otherwise under the facts presented here, we would create a concept in the law which would permit an injured plaintiff to have a new limitations period commence for the initiation of an action for personal injuries as of the date when each complication or change in condition arose, despite the fact that no ‘new’ negligence has occurred which is attributable to the defendant. Such a concept would be contrary to the legislative intent inherent in the creation of periods of limitations in our law.” 287 Pa.Super. at 441, 430 A.2d at 685-86. We believe that Shadle is directly applicable to the case now before us.

Subsequent to the time that the appeals were filed in the case before us, Staiano, supra, was decided. In Staiano, the panel noted as dictum that a claim for a “different disease of pleural thickening” would be barred, “for a new limitation period does not start each time a new disease develops from the same tortious conduct of the defendant.” 304 Pa.Super. at 294, 450 A.2d at 688. Although the federal courts which decided the Bayless case attempted to apply Pennsylvania law, they did not have the benefit of the Shadle and Staiano decisions. After our decisions in those two cases and in the one now before us, it should be clear that in Pennsylvania a plaintiff’s claims for all injuries arising out of the same tortious conduct of a defendant must be brought within two years of the time that the plaintiff knows, or in the exercise of reasonable diligence should know, of his initial injury and that the injury was caused by someone’s wrongful conduct.

In its opinion and order granting summary judgment in the 1978 case, the lower court dismissed Thelma Cathcart’s claim for emotional distress sustained at witnessing her husband’s injury, finding that the claim was untimely, and also that the claim was deficient because one of the requirements of Sinn v. Burd, 486 Pa. 146, 404 A.2d 672 (1979) — mental distress arising from the sensory and contemporaneous observance of an accident — was absent. Appellants challenge the second of these findings.

In Hoffner v. Hodge, 47 Pa.Cmwlth. 277, 407 A.2d 940 (1979), the Commonwealth Court affirmed the denial of a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress which was based on allegedly negligent surgery performed on a child. The court, citing Sinn, found: “The traumatic impact from viewing the negligent injury of one’s close relative is wholly absent in this case.” 47 Pa.Cmwlth. at 281, 407 A.2d 940. The court therefore affirmed the Administrator’s order striking the pertinent counts of the complaint. In Vattimo v. Lower Bucks Hospital, Inc., 59 Pa.Cmwlth. 1, 428 A.2d 765 (1981), rev’d. on other grounds, 502 Pa. 241, 465 A.2d 1231 (1983), the Commonwealth Court, again relying on Sinn, ruled that recovery for negligently inflicted emotional distress should be limited to plaintiffs who were at the scene of the injury. In Amader v. Johns-Manville Corp., 514 F.Supp. 1031 (E.D.Pa.1981), a federal district court considered the specific issue now before us, and concluded that recovery could not be had for emotional distress resulting from the development of an occupational disease. The court noted: “Clearly, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania contemplated a discrete and identifiable traumatic event to trigger recovery.” 514 F.Supp. at 1032. The developing case law clearly indicates that a cause of action will not lie for emotional distress negligently caused to a bystander, unless the bystander personally observes an identifiable traumatic incident. The lower court’s dismissal of Thelma Cathcart’s claim for negligently-caused emotional distress sustained at witnessing her husband’s developing disease is affirmed.

The lower court, noting the absence of any physical manifestations of disease in Thelma Cathcart, dismissed her claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress based on the risk to her own health. The court held that unless and until she manifested physical injury caused by exposure to asbestos dust, her claim for emotional distress would not be legally cognizable. In Niederman v. Brodsky, 436 Pa. 401, 261 A.2d 84 (1970) (in which the Supreme Court abrogated the impact rule in cases involving the negligent infliction of emotional distress), the court cited the Restatement (Second), Torts § 436(2), ás being in harmony with their decision. That section states:

If the actor’s conduct is negligent as creating an unreasonable risk of causing bodily harm to another otherwise than by subjecting him to fright, shock, or other similar and immediate emotional disturbance, the fact that such harm results solely from the internal operation of fright or other emotional disturbance does not protect the actor from liability.

We find § 436(A) pertinent to the case before us:

If the actor’s conduct is negligent as creating an unreasonable risk of causing either bodily harm or emotional disturbance to another, and it results in such emotional disturbance alone, without bodily harm or other compensable damage, the actor is not liable for such emotional disturbance.

This latter section was relied upon by a panel of our Court in Banyas v. Lower Bucks Hospital, 293 Pa.Super. 122, 437 A.2d 1236 (1981). In that case, the court held that a complaint which alleged that the defendants (a hospital, two physicians, and a nurse) prepared records indicating that an individual’s death was due solely to injuries inflicted on him by the plaintiff, was insufficient to state a cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress, since the complaint averred no physical harm.

Appellants argue, however, that Mrs. Cathcart did suffer injury in that she ingested asbestos fibers brought home by her husband on his clothes. Appellants rely on Plummer v. United States, 580 F.2d 72 (3rd Cir.1978) as support for this argument. In Plummer, it was alleged that prison authorities had negligently permitted, a prisoner with an active case of tuberculosis to mingle among the general prison population, exposing the plaintiffs to the risk of contracting tuberculosis. Medical tests had disclosed that, although the plaintiffs were suffering no symptoms, their bodies were actually harboring dormant tubercle bacilli, which necessitated a precautionary year-long treatment with drugs. The third circuit found that a cause of action had been stated. We find Plummer to be readily distinguishable. In the case before us, Mrs. Cathcart has demonstrated no physical manifestation of disease whatsoever. Her allegation is basically only that she “undoubtedly ingested” asbestos fibers in laundering her husband’s clothes over the years. We agree with the lower court that until Thelma Cathcart is able to allege some physical injury or some medically-identifiable effect linked to her exposure to asbestos particles, her claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress is not legally cognizable.

Appellants argue that the lower court failed to consider Papieves v. Kelly, 437 Pa. 373, 263 A.2d 118 (1970) when it dismissed their claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress. In Papieves, citing the Restatement (Second) Torts, § 46 (1965) , our Supreme Court noted that “[t]he law has only recently recognized that the freedom from mental distress directly caused by wanton or outrageous conduct is entitled to legal protection independent of any other cause of action ....” 437 Pa. at 378, 262 A.2d at 121. The Supreme Court concluded that the parties might be entitled to recover for serious mental or emotional distress directly caused by the intentional and wanton acts of mishandling a decedent’s body. On the other hand, in Wisniewski v. Johns-Manville Corp. (E.D.Pa.1981), a federal district court judge dismissed a claim for emotional distress in an asbestos case, stating: “I am not persuaded that the allegations of the complaint succeed, or can succeed, in charging the defendants with intentional infliction of emotional distress, or with causing emotional distress through negligence so gross and outrageous as to bring this case within the limits of § 46 of the Restatement of Torts (Second).”

Whether we agree with the federal district judge in Wisniewski, or feel that plaintiffs have a cause of action within the bounds of Papieves and § 46 of the Restatement, will not be addressed in this opinion. In its opinion and order in the 1978 action, the lower court stated: “[I]t is hereby ordered and decreed that wife-plaintiff’s claims for infliction of emotional distress are dismissed as to all defendants, and summary judgment is entered in their favor.” In the summary of its conclusions, however, the lower court stated: “The claim for the negligent infliction of emotional distress incurred as a result of wife-plaintiff’s discovery that she was at risk of contracting asbestos-related disease is dismissed as to all defendants for failure to state a legally cognizable cause of action at this time.” (Emphasis added). The lower court did not seem to consider (probably because of the muddled nature of appellants’ complaint) that the Cathcarts were claiming damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress, and it is not clear whether the lower court intended to dismiss this particular claim. Furthermore, due to the state of the record provided our Court, we are not able to determine if the issue was raised by any party in the lower court. We will therefore not consider at this time whether the plaintiffs have a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Appellee GAF argues that the lower court erred in refusing its motion for non pros. Denial of a motion for non pros is not appealable. O’Brien v. Virginia Mansions, 277 Pa.Super. 568, 419 A.2d 1295 (1980). Appellee GAF will not be permitted to avoid the rule against appealing from the denial of non pros by raising the issue in an appellee’s brief in an appeal which is properly before us.

GAF does not appear to challenge in its brief the lower court’s refusal to grant summary judgment in GAF’s favor. Twenty-eight of the other defendants, however, filed a “Brief for Appellees and Amici Curiae, which did challenge the lower court’s refusal to grant summary judgment in favor of GAF. An order denying a motion for summary judgment is interlocutory and not appealable. Pa. Turnpike Commission v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 482 Pa. 615, 621, 394 A.2d 491, 494 (1978); Hughes v. Pron, 286 Pa.Super. 419, 424, 429 A.2d 9,11 (1981). The appellees and amici curiae will not be permitted to avoid the rule against taking an appeal from an order denying summary judgment by raising the. issue in a brief filed in response to an appeal.

The lower court’s order in the 1976 case is affirmed insofar as it grants non pros in favor of defendants. The order in the 1978 case is affirmed insofar as it grants summary judgment in favor of defendants on David Cathcart’s claims and Thelma Cathcart’s consortium claim. The order in the 1978 case is affirmed insofar as it grants summary judgment in favor of defendants on Thelma Cathcart’s claims for negligent infliction of emotional distress. Since Johns-Manville Corp., UNARCO, and Amatex are no longer parties to this appeal, our order does not apply to them. The cases are remanded to the lower court for further proceedings.

Jurisdiction is not retainéd.

WICKERSHAM, J., files a concurring opinion in which SPAETH and HOFFMAN, JJ., join.

WICKERSHAM, Judge,

concurring:

I agree with the major portion of the majority opinion. I write separately, however, to express my concern with the majority’s treatment of the “discovery rule” and its application to the statute of limitations. The majority finds that the three-part test as expressed in Volpe v. Johns-Manville Corp., 4 Phila.County Rptr. 290, and as approved in Staiano v. Johns-Manville Corp., 304 Pa.Super. 280, 450 A.2d 681 (1982) “unnecessarily complicates the question of when the statute begins to run.” The majority then constructs a “simpler” two-part test.

While this two-step formulation is not incorrect, I feel that it does not clearly recognize that in “creeping disease” cases, as opposed to normal personal injury cases, there may be significant gaps in time intervening between the plaintiff’s awareness of his injury, his knowledge of the cause of the injury, and the relationship between the cause and the injury. The three-part “Volpe” test clarifies the different levels of “knowledge” the plaintiff must attain before the statute of limitations begins to run against him.

The three-part “Volpe test” is not too complicated; rather, it more clearly identifies the point in time when the statute of limitations begins to run against the plaintiff.

SPAETH and HOFFMAN, JJ., join.

      . Acceptance of service is provided for by Pa.R.C.P. No. 1011: “In lieu of service by the sheriff, the defendant may accept service of the writ or complaint.”

      . According to the lower court’s opinion of April 30, 1981 (1976 case), on February 19, 1976, appellants filed a petition to consolidate forty-five asbestos cases, including the one now before us, for purposes of service, discovery, and trial. This petition was denied by the lower court. Appellants apparently also filed a petition on July 13, 1976, for leave to serve by registered - mail, which petition was also denied. There is no record in the copy of the docket entries provided our court of any of this activity. In fact, our disposition of this appeal has, in general, been hindered by the deplorable state of the record. Pages of the docket entries were not reproduced at all, other pages were only partially reproduced, and the whole was such a maze of chicken-scratching, reduced in size by the miracle of the modern copier so as to be well-nigh impossible to read. In addition, documents which had obviously been presented to the lower court and ruled upon were not included with the record. We hope that this does not signify a trend.

      . Pa.R.C.P. No. 1012 provides that a party may enter a written appearance with an address at which papers may be served, but further provides that "such appearance shall not constitute a waiver of the right to raise any defense including questions of jurisdiction or venue.” The mere fact, then, that counsel entered appearances on behalf of Amatex and Certain-Teed did not mean that these two defendants waived the right to challenge (by preliminary objections, Pa.R.C.P. No. 1017(b)(1)) appellants’ failure to effect proper service of the Writ of Summons. Unless the two parties whose counsel entered appearances took some further action, they retained the right to later challenge the court’s jurisdiction over them. The docket indicates that Amatex did take such further action. There is no indication in the docket that Certain-Teed took such further action.

      . The lower court’s opinion indicates that Owen-Corning and Amatex evidently settled with the plaintiffs and obtained joint tortfeasor releases.

      . Various motions and pleadings were filed at various times by various parties in the two cases. In addition, appeals were taken at various times by certain parties. By order of August 14, 1982, we denied GAF’s petitions for permission to appeal from denial of non pros (384 Misc.Docket # 12), from denial of summary judgment (383 Misc.Docket # 12); and from denial of preliminary objections (385 Misc.Docket # 12). By Order of August 24, 1982, we denied GAF permission to appeal from denial of its petition for reconsideration of non pro.s motion (158 Misc.Docket # 13), quashed GAF's appeals from denial of non pros (1406 Phila., 1981), from denial of motion for summary judgment (1407 Phila., 1981), and from denial of petition for reconsideration (1411 Phila., 1981), quashed UNARCO’s appeal from denial of preliminary objections (1395 Phila., 1981), denied as moot GAF’s petitions to consolidate, denied GAF’s petitions to extend time for filing briefs, and granted appellants’ petitions to consolidate appeals at Nos. 1377 and 1378 Phila. 1981. On February 16, 1983, we permitted Johns-Manville Corp., UNARCO, and Amatex to be severed from the appeals now before us.

      . As noted previously, defendant Pars had separately been granted a judgment of non pros.

      . Normally, a challenge to the lower court’s personal jurisdiction over a defendant is raised in preliminary objections raising a question of jurisdiction, pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. No. 1017(b)(1). In the case before us, the question of waiver of personal jurisdiction arises because the lower court felt that if some of the defendants had not been properly brought before the court, then action taken by the plaintiffs in the case was not taken with respect to those defendants, and the period of delay in prosecuting the action would thus not be tolled as to those defendants.

      . The statute in effect in February, 1976, read:
      “Every suit hereafter brought to recover damages for injury wrongfully done to the person, in case where the injury does not result in death, must be brought within two years from the time when the injury was done and not afterwards____” Act of June 24, 1895, P.L. 236, § 2, 12 P.S. § 34. This statute was repealed by the Act of April 28, 1978, P.L. 202, No. 53, § 2(a)[807], effective June 27, 1978. The current statute of limitations (also two years) is found at 42 Pa.C.S. § 5524.

      . See Anthony v. Koppers Co., Inc., 284 Pa.Super. 81, 425 A.2d 428 (1981), reversed at 496 Pa. 119, 436 A.2d 181 (1981), for a discussion of the development of this rule in Pennsylvania.

      . It should be noted that we are not attempting at this time to define "injury.” The importance of the definition should be readily apparent. A narrow definition will greatly enlarge the right of plaintiffs, as the statute of limitations will begin to run at a later time. Adoption of a loose definition of “injury” will mean that the statute of limitations could begin running with the discovery of a trivial harm, with the likely consequence that inconsequential lawsuits will be filed in order to avoid statute of limitations problems. In the case before us, according to the deposition testimony, David Cathcart was permanent

        ly disabled more than two years prior to the time that he filed his complaint. This was unquestionably sufficient “injury" for statute of limitations purposes. Rather than attempt to formulate a definition at this time, we will await a case in which the issue has been raised in the lower court and properly briefed on appeal.

      . See Nolan v. Johns-Manville Asbestos, 85 Ill.2d 161, 52 Ill.Dec. 1, 421 N.E.2d 864 (1981); Harig v. Johns-Manville Products Corp., 284 Md. 70, 394 A.2d 299 (1978); Karjala v. Johns-Manville Products Corp., 523 F.2d 155 (8th Cir., 1975).

      . Appellants do not specify what the difficulties were. Evidently, the difficulties resulted from appellants’ attorneys being too busy to take depositions and file interrogatories.

      . The panel noted in Shadle, 287 Pa.Super. at 441 n. 3, 430 A.2d at 686 n. 3, that it might have reached a different result if the second injury had been a "separate and distinct” one. If such injury were "separate and distinct" in the sense that it had a separate tortious cause, then we agree that a limitations period with a different onset date might have applied.

      . § 46. Outrageous Conduct Causing Severe Emotional Distress
      (1) One who by extreme and outrageous conduct intentionally or recklessly causes severe emotional distress to another is subject to liability for such emotional distress, and if bodily harm to the other results from it, for such bodily harm.
      (2) Where such conduct is directed at a third person, the actor is subject to liability if he intentionally or recklessly causes severe emotional distress
      (a) to a member of such person’s immediate family who is present at the time, whether or not such distress results in bodily harm, or
      (b) to any other person who is present at the timé, if such distress results in bodily harm.

      . See also Jones v. Nissenbaum, 244 Pa.Super. 377, 368 A.2d 770 (1976); and Banyas, supra.

      . Pa.R.A.P. 531 provides that anyone interested in the questions involved in any matter pending in an appellate court may file a brief amicus curiae in regard to those questions. In addition to the briefs filed by the Cathcarts and GAF, a brief was filed at these appeal numbers "by those parties who obtained judgments in their favor in the court below, together with certain other defendants involved in the asbestos litigation in Philadelphia County who have an interest in the outcome of this appeal.” Those parties endorsing this Brief for Appellees and Amici Curiae are: Amatex; Armstrong Cork Co.; AstenHill Co.; Baldwin-Ehret-Hill; Baldwin-Hill; Ehret; Carolina Asbestos Company, Inc.; Celotex Corp.; Delaware Asbestos and Rubber Company; Eagle-Picher Industries, Inc.; Fibreboard Corp.; Forty-Eight; Glen Alden Corporation; H.K. Porter Company, Inc.; J.P. Stevens & Co.; Johns-Manville Corp.; Johns-Manville Salés Corp.; Keene Corp.; Nicolet Industries; Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp.; Pabco Industrial Products Division; Pacor; Pittsburgh' Corning Corporation; Rapid-American Corporation; Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc.; Southern Asbestos Company; Thermoid Company; and Uniroyal, Inc.

      . We note that Volpe is currently before an en banc panel of this court to consider whether plaintiffs cause of action is controlled by admiralty law.


author: WICKERSHAM, Judge:

text:
    471 A.2d 510
    COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Terry SMITH, Appellant.
    Superior Court of Pennsylvania.
    Submitted May 12, 1983.
    Filed Jan. 20, 1984.

      Thomas G. Klingensmith, Assistant Public Defender, Lancaster, for appellant.
    Michael H. Ranck, District Attorney, Lancaster, for Commonwealth, appellee.
    Before WICKERSHAM, WATKINS and MONTGOMERY, JJ.
   WICKERSHAM, Judge:

This is an appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County, denying a petition for dismissal based on double jeopardy.

The appellant, Terry Smith, was charged with two counts of indecent assault and one count of involuntary deviate sexual intercourse. The alleged victims of these crimes were ten and eleven year old sisters, who were neighbors of the appellant. A jury trial was held before the Honorable D. Richard Eckman. All of the testimony and evidence in this case was presented in one day, June 10, 1981. The jury was charged on the following morning and began its deliberations. After approximately eight and one half hours, the jury declared itself hopelessly deadlocked on the two counts before them and the court declared a mistrial. The Commonwealth quickly notified the appellant of its intention to re-try the charges, and on June 26, 1981, the appellant filed a motion to dismiss the charges based on double jeopardy grounds. The Commonwealth filed an answer and, on July 14, 1981, the court denied appellant’s motion, on the basis that manifest necessity had warranted the court’s declaration of a mistrial. It is from this order of court that this appeal was filed.

Appellant’s question for us is not complex:

When a jury deliberates for a period of only eight hours did manifest necessity exist for a declaration of a mistrial?

Brief for Appellant at 1. Under the facts of this case, we find that manifest necessity did exist.

The double jeopardy clause of the fifth amendment provides, in part, that no person shall be subject for the offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb. Our courts have adhered to the rule that in a jury case, jeopardy attaches when the jury is sworn. Commonwealth v. Carson, 259 Pa.Super. 183, 393 A.2d 778 (1978). No one argues that the jury was not sworn in appellant’s case. Jeopardy had clearly attached.

As appellant himself admits in his brief, however, the double jeopardy proscription does not mean that every time a defendant is put on trial before a competent court, he is entitled to go free if the trial fails to end in a final judgment. But in most instances, retrials are limited to cases in which the defendant consented to the mistrial or its declaration was manifestly necessary. Commonwealth v. Perrin, 272 Pa.Super. 24, 414 A.2d 650 (1979). See also Commonwealth v. Starks, 312 Pa.Super. 227, 458 A.2d 597 (1983); Commonwealth v. Bradley, 311 Pa.Super. 330, 457 A.2d 911 (1983). It is well settled that when, without defense consent, a jury is discharged for failure to reach a verdict, retrial is permissible if the discharge was manifestly necessary. Commonwealth v. Murry, 498 Pa. 504, 447 A.2d 612 (1982); Commonwealth v. Santiago, 492 Pa. 297, 424 A.2d 870 (1981); Commonwealth v. Bartolomucci, 468 Pa. 338, 362 A.2d 234 (1976); Commonwealth v. Ketner, 304 Pa.Super. 226, 450 A.2d 653 (1982); Commonwealth v. Plexico, 270 Pa.Super. 543, 411 A.2d 1219 (1979) “Manifest necessity” is the test for appellate review of the trial judge’s exercise of his discretion in declaring a mistrial without defendant’s consent. Commonwealth v. Monte, 459 Pa. 495, 329 A.2d 836 (1974).

The genuine inability of a jury to agree on a verdict constitutes a manifest necessity to declare a mistrial, even over a defendant’s objection, without offending the double jeopardy clause. Commonwealth v. Monte, supra; Commonwealth v. Ketner, supra; Commonwealth v. Perrin, supra. A genuine inability of a jury to agree on a verdict exists if there is no reasonable probability of agreement among the jurors. Commonwealth v. Murry, supra; Commonwealth v. Monte, supra; Commonwealth v. Perrin, supra. On appellate review of the lower court’s finding of manifest necessity, the circumstances of the trial must be examined to determine if any doubt exists regarding the propriety of the exercise of discretion by the lower court. Commonwealth v. Bartolomucci, supra; Commonwealth v. Story, 270 Pa.Super. 66, 410 A.2d 1251 (1979).

The length of time that a jury should deliberate is not for the jury to determine. Instead, this decision is best left to the sound discretion of the trial judge. Commonwealth v. Sullivan, 484 Pa. 130, 398 A.2d 978 (1979); Commonwealth v. Ketner, supra. A determination as to whether a verdict cannot be reached so that manifest necessity for retrial exists depends on the number, complexity, and gravity of charges, and the volume of evidence presented, and rests largely within the discretion of the trial court. Commonwealth v. Kivlin, 267 Pa.Super. 270, 406 A.2d 799 (1979). The trial judge’s decision is reversible only if there is an abuse of discretion or if a verdict is the product of an overworked or fatigued jury. Commonwealth v. Sullivan, supra; Commonwealth v. Campbell, 445 Pa. 488, 284 A.2d 798 (1971); Commonwealth v. Story, supra. In Commonwealth v. Bartolomueci, supra, the supreme court emphasized the importance of having the court below inquire directly of the jury, either individually or through the foreman, about the possibility of the deadlock being overcome by further deliberations. Such an inquiry serves to remove any doubt as to the existence of a deadlock and the hopelessness of breaking it. See also Commonwealth v. Ketner, supra; Commonwealth v. Story, supra.

In the case at bar, the testimony consisted of four witnesses for the Commonwealth and two witnesses for the defense. The testimony and evidence was concluded on the same day that it was begun. Jury deliberations began the following morning at 9:20 a.m., on two of the three charges (the judge had directed a verdict of not guilty as to the third charge). At 2:55 p.m., the jury returned to the courtroom and its foreman stated that they would not be able to reach a unanimous decision. (N.T. at 188). The court then gave a Spencer charge (see Commonwealth v. Spencer, 442 Pa. 328, 275 A.2d 299 (1971)), and sent the jury back to deliberate further. In addition, the court directed that refreshments be given to the jury. Deliberation began again at 2:58 p.m. and continued until 5:35 p.m. At that time, the jury again returned and told the judge that it was deadlocked. The foreman stated that any further deliberation would be fruitless. (N.T. at 191). The foreman requested, however, that the jury be allowed to go back in for five minutes to talk one thing over. The judge agreed. The jury returned about two minutes later and confirmed that they were hopelessly deadlocked and would not be able to reach a unanimous verdict on either of the two counts before it. Then the judge polled each juror individually as to whether he or she was firmly convinced that no verdict could be reached on either count. Each juror answered yes. (N.T. at 193). Upon a request by the court for comments, defense counsel suggested that certain documents be allowed to go to the jury to possibly facilitate deliberations. (N.T. at 193). The Commonwealth objected and the judge declined to send the documents to the jury. After some further discussion, the court declared a mistrial and dismissed the jury at 5:50 p.m.

In the order in question, the trial judge referred to Commonwealth v. Perrin, supra. The facts in Perrin are remarkedly similar to the facts in this case. In Perrin, the jury deliberated for approximately the same amount of time as did the jury in the instant case, 8V4 hours, albeit over a two-day period due to their late start on the first day. The judge gave the jury a Spencer charge and sent them back to deliberate again, without success. We find the distinctions in the instant case, that “the jurors deliberated fewer hours and did not have an overnight trial” (Brief for Appellant at 5) to be immaterial, especially where the nature of the case and the amount of testimony the jury had to consider was not as great as in Perrin.

After reviewing the record in this case, we conclude that the lower court satisfactorily complied with the requirements of Commonwealth v. Bartolomucci, supra as set for in Commonwealth v. Story, supra.

The court inquired directly of the jury, through the foreman, about the possibility of the deadlock being overcome by further deliberations. The foreman replied unequivocally that further deliberations would not resolve the deadlock. The judge’s questioning of the jury indicates that he made a proper effort to determine whether a verdict could be reached, and the foreman’s responses certainly served to remove any doubt about the existence of a deadlock and the hopelessness of breaking it. Under these circumstances, we would find that the court below did not abuse its discretion in declaring a mistrial for reasons of manifest necessity.

Commonwealth v. Story, supra, 270 Pa.Super. at 76, 410 A.2d at 1256.

We find that eight and one half hours of deliberation was adequate time for the jury to properly consider this case and conclude that it was hopelessly deadlocked.

The order of the lower court is affirmed.

      . Jurisdiction is vested in this court pursuant to Commonwealth v. Bolden, 472 Pa. 602, 373 A.2d 90 (1977), in which the supreme court held that pre-trial orders denying double jeopardy claims are final, appealable orders.

      . At the close of the testimony, a directed verdict of not guilty was entered by the court to the second count of indecent assault.

      . The following approximate times are among those that have been held adequate for jury deliberations in cases similar to the instant case: Commonwealth v. Murry, supra (13 hours for murder, robbery, conspiracy, and possession of an instrument of crime); Commonwealth v. Santiago, supra (30 hours for murder, rape, indecent assault, and conspiracy); Commonwealth v. Sullivan, supra (20 hours for murder, robbery, and possession of an instrument of crime); Commonwealth v. Johnson, 460 Pa. 493, 333 A.2d 881 (1975) (8 hours for murder); Commonwealth v. Monte, supra (6V2 hours for conspiracy and setting up and maintaining an illegal lottery); Commonwealth v. Ketner, supra (27 hours for rape); Commonwealth v. Perrin, supra (8'/4 hours for murder, robbery, and conspiracy); Commonwealth v. Story, supra (11 hours for robbery, recklessly endangering another person, unlawfully carrying a firearm, and altering marks of identification); Commonwealth v. Myers, 266 Pa.Super. 566, 405 A.2d 1252 (1979) (7 hours for involuntary manslaughter); Commonwealth v. Kivlin, supra (19 hours for murder); Commonwealth v. Plexico, supra (18 hours for murder, conspiracy, and possessing instruments of a crime).


author: BROSKY, Judge:

text:
    471 A.2d 514
    In re Matthew REMLEY. Appeal of Matthew REMLEY.
    Superior Court of Pennsylvania.
    Submitted Oct. 7, 1983.
    Filed Jan. 20, 1984.

      John J. Thomas, Assistant Public Defender, Wilkes-Barre, for appellant.
    Ralph J. Johnston, Jr., Wilkes-Barre, for participating party.
    Before BROSKY, MONTGOMERY and CERCONE, JJ.
   BROSKY, Judge:

This appeal is from an order involuntarily committing appellant, an 82 year old man, to a state mental hospital for 20 days under 50 P.S. § 7303. Appellant contends that, contrary to the enabling statute, he was committed because he was senile and not because he posed “a clear and present danger of harm to others or to himself.” 50 P.S. 7301(a). We agree and, accordingly, reverse the commitment order.

First, we note that although the commitment period in question has long since expired, we will, nonetheless consider it. We do so in order to maintain appellate oversight of this liberty-depriving procedure. “Appeals from orders for involuntary commitment rarely reach this Court within 90 days. Were we to dismiss such appeals as moot, the challenged procedure could continue, yet its propriety would evade our review. Accordingly, we will reach the merits of this case.” In re Ann S., 279 Pa.Super. 618, at 621 n. 2, 421 A.2d 370, at 372 n. 2 (1980).

A statute prohibits the commitment of the senile qua senile. “... Persons who are mentally retarded, senile, alcoholic, or drug dependent shall receive mental health treatment only if they are also diagnosed as mentally ill, but these conditions of themselves shall not be deemed to constitute mental illness...” 50 P.S. § 7102. The Supreme Court of this Commonwealth has written on the mentally retarded provision. See In re Schmidt, 494 Pa. 86, 429 A.2d 631 (1981). It remains for us here to enforce the provision regarding the senile.

Since appellant could not have been properly committed because he was senile, it remains for us to determine if he otherwise met the statutory criteria for involuntary commitment. The relevant statute provides, in relevant part, that a person who is “severely mentally disabled” may be involuntarily committed. “A person is severely mentally disabled when, as a result of mental illness, his capacity to exercise self-control, judgment and discretion in the conduct of his affairs and social relations .or to care for his own personal needs is so lessened that he poses a clear and present danger of harm to others or to himself.” 50 P.S. § 7301(a). The statute then amplifies the standard of harm to others. “Clear and present danger to others shall be shown by establishing that within the past 30 days the person has inflicted or attempted to inflict serious bodily harm on another and that there is a reasonable probability that such conduct will be repeated.” 50 P.S. § 7301(b)(1).

The only testimony of any kind relating in any way to appellant’s having inflicted or having attempted to inflict serious bodily injury to others or to a reasonable probability of such actions being repeated is as follows.

He had a knife that he peels, I give him for oranges and apples; he peels them and I trust him with it, they didn’t. I did trust him; so anyway I turned around and I want to take it off him and that’s when he like he swatted me one — I was gonna swat him back and I give him a push...

The second incident was testified to as follows:

R. JOHNSON: Did he ever kick you in the stomach?
MRS. REMLEY: Well it was this when he did that. Well see I make him go to bed and I cover him up. He’ll get up about ten times so I shoved him and that’s when he kicked me. Then he... you know you protect yourself. . .so... But he didn’t kick me that hard.

In general, appellant’s wife also stated:

R. JOHNSON: I see, has he threatened you on any occasion?
MRS. REMLEY: No, no, no he’s not a guy like that.
R. JOHNSON: Were you injured in any respect?
MRS. REMLEY: No he doesn’t (inaudible).

A psychiatric nurse who had been caring for appellant during his pre-hearing stay at a state mental hospital, also testified that appellant had not tried to harm anyone.

We do not hesitate to conclude that there is not a quantum of evidence that appellant inflicted or attempted to inflict serious bodily injury — or that there was “a reasonable probability that such conduct will be repeated.”

The portion of the statute which defines harm to himself reads in part:

(2) Clear and present danger to himself shall be shown by establishing that within the past 30 days:
(i) the person has acted in such manner as to evidence that he would be unable, without care, supervision and the continued assistance of others, to satisfy his need for nourishment, personal or medical care, shelter, or self-protection and safety, and that there is a reasonable probability that death, serious bodily injury or serious physical debilitation would ensue within 30 days unless adequate treatment were afforded under this act; or

50 P.S. § 7301(b)(2)(i).

This requirement has two parts. The first relates to his need for the assistance of others. The second, separately necessary, condition is that the most serious consequences must be probable in the immediate future unless the person is committed.

The testimony in general established that appellant did require the domestic services of his wife. (There was some conflict in the testimony about whether appellant could feed or dress himself. But it is clear that appellant needs the help of his wife in the tasks of daily life.)

It is the second condition which was not met here. The statute does not require that everyone who needs the assistance of others should be committed. It does require that they both need such help and won’t get it without being committed. There was no evidence that appellant would probably die, incur serious bodily injury or serious physical ■ debilitation if he were not committed.

The testimony given on this matter was not on point. The state mental hospital physician was asked whether appellant would “be able to survive if he were released from this hospital solely on his own...” (emphásis supplied). He replied in the negative. That was not, however, a pertinent enquiry. The proper issue was whether he could survive without serious ill effects outside of the institution.

The only testimony that went to the possible insufficiency of the care he would receive at home follows:

R. JOHNSON: What if you left him alone, would he wander at all?
MRS. REMLEY: He used to, but no more. He’d like wander cause (INAUDIBLE) but he did once or twice, but he hasn’t done it in a long time, because I leave him in the house while I feed my little chicks and little ringnecks. I come in, he’s in there; lookin’ for food.

Again, we do not hesitate to conclude that the statutory standard was not met here.

There are indications in the record before us that appellant and his wife were caught in the grasp of well-intentioned officials. But, when the awesome power of the government bureaucracy and the courts is brought to bear on the individual citizen, good intentions are not' enough. Even though they may be motivated by a desire to help the individual, the actions of the government must be strictly circumscribed by the law. This is most particularly mandatory when the governmental action involves the deprivation of the citizen’s liberty. The courts, in overseeing such liberty-depriving bureaucratic action, must be especially protective of the rights of the individual and vigilant in ensuring that the legal safeguards have been complied with.

As we have noted, the statutory requirements were not met here. To compound matters, it appears that they were not met through a certain degree of overreaching by the officials and by the Court.

MRS. REMLEY: Pardon me, when I was up the hospital they wanted him to sign something, a couple papers and I said to them; “he doesn’t know what he’s signing, he can’t sign that.” So then they gave me four papers. Well I want a chance to read what I’m signing. They didn’t give me a chance, they just took ’em and that was it. My boy said, I want you to get a copy of that mom, why didn’t you call me? I didn’t know what, he said well that’s alright, well I like the one fella that’s there because he really has a heart.

When this assertion was repeated in front of the Court, the following exchange took place:

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. I know they made me sign this.
THE COURT: Nobody made you sign anything now. They don’t make you do things. You do this of your own accord. Have her read her statement there to the Court.

Finally, in its opinion, the court below accepted the state physician’s diagnosis of senility and wrote:

It is felt by the undersigned, however, that in-patient psychiatric treatment for any period longer than the twenty (20) days ordered herein would not be an appropriate solution to the Respondent’s difficult positions.
The Respondent is clearly in need of skilled nursing home care on a continuous basis. Confinement in a state psychiatric hospital for any period in excess of the twenty (20) days would not serve the Respondent’s best interests and would not comport with the spirit of the Act.
Therefore, it is further ORDERED that the Social Services Department of Danville State Hospital cooperate with the Respondent’s family and the Hazleton-Nanticoke Mental Health/Mental Retardation Center to obtain placement of the Respondent in an appropriate skilled nursing home facility at the end of the twenty (20) day period of in-patient treatment ordered herein. Additionally, referral shall be made to the Area Agency on Aging in the event they can be of some assistance to the Respondent.

The Court below acknowledged that it perceived appellant’s needs to be for services other than those provided in a state mental institution. Under these circumstances, confinement, even for 20 days, in that institution was improper.

Order reversed and appellant discharged.

      . Appellant also contends that the hearing officer violated due process in declaring a 14 day commitment at the end of the hearing and then increasing it in the written order the next day to 20 days. We do not reach this issue due to our reversal of the entire commitment order.

      . Mrs. Remley, the witness quoted here, has been appellant’s wife for 60 years.

      . The above testimony was given at the Master’s hearing. The testimony given before the Court was substantively identical. . .and so I went to grab it, take the knife off him. Well, maybe I went a little too fast and he sweeped and slapped me in the cheek.”

      . Johnson was appellant's counsel.

      . At the hearing before the Court Mrs. Remley added only that appellant was lying down and she was standing when the kick in question occurred.

      . There was quoted at the hearing before the Court a statement said to have been made by Mrs. Remley to the MH/MR authorities. In it she allegedly stated that appellant had hit her hand with a pot. At both hearings Mrs. Remley repeatedly denied this.

      . Two other sections following the above quoted section relate to attempted suicide and self-mutilation. There is no evidence whatsoever relating to these provisions.

      . Of course, their condition must also be due to a severe mental disability.

      . We must wonder through what legal authority the Court was going to compel appellant’s placement in a nursing home — given both appellant’s and his wife’s desire that he live at home. There was no incompetency proceeding mentioned.


author: WATKINS, Judge:

text:
    471 A.2d 518
    Frank SALLADINO, Michael Salladino and Florence Salladino, Appellants, v. PATROLMAN BROOKS #4035, Patrolman Conrad #9317 and Philadelphia Police Department.
    Superior Court of Pennsylvania.
    Submitted April 21, 1983.
    Filed Jan. 20, 1984.

      Nino V. Tinari, Philadelphia, for appellants.
    Jill A. Douthett, Assistant City Solicitor, Philadelphia, for appellees.
    Before WICKERSHAM, ROWLEY and WATKINS, JJ.
   WATKINS, Judge:

This matter comes before us on direct appeal from the entry of a compulsory non-suit by the Honorable Ned L. Hirsh in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County on October 27, 1981 when appellants Frank, Michael and Florence Salladino failed to appear at the trial of their trespass action against Patrolmen Brooks and Conrad, two police officers employed by the City of Philadelphia. Appellants have presented one question for us on review and we limit our review to the question of whether the trial judge abused his discretion in granting appellee/defendant’s request for a non-suit.

It is our opinion that as to appellants/plaintiffs Michael and Florence Salladino, the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in granting the non-suit. However, we find that as to Frank Salladino a non-suit should not have been granted.

The granting of continuances is governed by Rule 216 and Rule 218 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 218 states in its pertinent part, “When a case is called for trial, if one party is ready and the other is not ready, without satisfactory excuse being made known to the court, a non-suit may be entered on motion of the defendant, or the plaintiff may proceed to trial, as the case may be.”

Appellants filed a Complaint in Trespass on December 29, 1975 alleging they were victims of police brutality in an incident that occurred on February 20, 1975. The record shows that between 1975 and August, 1980, plaintiffs’ only activities of record were to respond to defendants’ discovery. A certificate of Readiness for Trial was filed by plaintiffs on August 16, 1980 and on May 20, 1980, the parties stipulated to place the case on the Major Trial List. From the time the case was placed on the Major Trial List until September, 1981, the plaintiffs requested several continuances. Approximately six weeks in advance of trial, the parties were notified of the time and place of trial. The scheduled trial date was for October 27, 1981. However, on that day at 9:15 a.m., counsel for the appellants telephoned the court to seek another continuance. This request was denied and at 10:00 counsel for the plaintiffs did appear but without his clients. Testimony was given as to the whereabouts of the plaintiff Frank Salladino. He was incarcerated in Montgomery County. Neither of the other plaintiffs appeared at trial and no excuses were offered for their failure to appear although plaintiffs’ counsel did acknowledge that they were notified to be present. The defendants moved for a non-suit when the plaintiffs did not appear and the motions was granted.

RULE 216. Grounds for Continuance
(A) The following are grounds for continuance:
(1) Agreement of all parties or their attorneys, if approved by the Court;
(2) Illness of counsel of record, a material witness, or party. If requested a certificate of a physician shall be furnished, stating that such illness will probably be of sufficient duration to prevent the ill person from participating in the trial;
(3) Inability to subpoena or to take testimony by deposition, commission, or letters rogatory, of any material witness, shown by affidavit which shall state:
(a) The facts to which the witness would testify if present or if his deposition should be taken;
(b) The grounds for believing that the absent witness would so testify or give his deposition:
(c) The efforts made to procure the attendance or deposition of such absent witness; and
(d) The reasons for believing that the witness will attend the trial at a subsequent date, or that his deposition can and will be obtained;
(4) Such special ground as may be allowed in the discretion of the court.
(B) Except for cause shown in special cases, no reason above enumerated for the continuance of a case shall be of effect beyond one application made in behalf of one party or group of parties having similar interests.
(C) No application for continuance shall be granted if based on a cause existing and known at the time of publication or prior call of the trial list unless the same is presented to the court at a time fixed by the court, which shall be at least one week before the first day of the trial period. Applications for continuances shall be made to the court, or filed in writing with the officer in charge of the trial list, after giving notice of such application by mail, or otherwise, to all parties or their attorneys. Each court may, by local rule, designate the time of publication of the trial list for the purposes of this rule.

It is well established that the decision granting judgment of non pros is soundly within the discretion of the lower court whose decision will not be reversed absent manifest abuse of discretion. Richards v. Swift, 241 Pa.Superior Ct. 359, 361 A.2d 688 (1976); Gallagher v. Jewis Hospital Assn. of Philo., 425 Pa. 112, 228 A.2d 732 (1967). To aid the judge in exercising his discretion there is a test which he applies which governs entry of judgment of non pros encompassing three main areas of consideration. The court considers whether plaintiffs’ delay indicates that they have not prosecuted the matter with due diligence, and it must be shown that there was no justification or compelling reason for the delay and the delay must cause prejudice to the defendant. American Bank and Trust Co. v. Ritter, Todd and Haayen, 274 Pa.Superior Ct. 285, 418 A.2d 408 (1980); Nath v. St. Clair Memorial Hospital, 251 Pa.Superior Ct. 361, 380 A.2d 820 (1977); Richards v. Swift, supra.

The plaintiff must be given the benefit of all favorable evidence and all reasonable inferences arising therefrom. Latch v. Reburn, 220 Pa.Superior Ct. 396, 281 A.2d 673 (1971); Tolbert v. Gillette, 438 Pa. 63, 260 A.2d 463 (1970); Laubach v. Haigh, 433 Pa. 487, 252 A.2d 682 (1969). Applying this law and viewing the record presented here in regard to appellants Michael and Florence Salladino, the lower court did not abuse its discretion in ordering a non-suit for it is apparent that no justification was presented to the court for their non appearance after many previous continuances had been granted. In fact appellants’ counsel testified that he had notified his clients to be present at the hearing at 9:30 A.M. There being no compelling reasons presented for further delay, the judgment of non pros as to Michael and Florence Salladino was properly entered. However, since appellant Frank Salladino was not able to exercise any control over his attendance at the trial and viewing the evidence as to his appearance in the light most favorable to him, Latch v. Rebrun, supra; Tolbert v. Gillette, supra; Laubach v. Haigh, supra, we must hold that as to this particular appellant the non-suit should not stand.

Despite the past history of this matter, counsel appears to have tried to secure this appellant’s appearance in court. On October 23, 1981, counsel did file a Petition requesting that Frank Salladino' be released for purposes of attending his trial. At the trial hearing on October 27, 1981 counsel did not consent to a non-suit for failure to be ready to proceed with the trial. In effect he opposed the non-suit for in a colloquy with the judge he described the service of papers made in order to secure the attendance of his incarcerated client at the trial. Counsel testified that he was told on the day before the scheduled trial in Philadelphia that his client would be on trial in Montgomery County on the same day. Therefore, giving appellant, Frank Salladino, every benefit to be derived from this evidence and from all reasonable inferences arising therefrom, we hold that as to appellant Frank Salladino, the non-suit should not have been granted.

The order of October 28, 1981 granting non-suit against plaintiffs Michael Salladino and Florence Salladino is affirmed; the portion of the same order granting non-suit against plaintiff Frank Salladino is reversed; and the case remanded for trial. Jurisdiction is relinquished.

      . P.R.C.P. 216 covers Grounds for Continuance. The following sections are applicable to the matter at hand:

      . Attached to appellants’ brief was a copy of an Order and Petition for Permission to Attend Civil Trial. There was no filing date stamped on it, but we note that the attorney’s statement was notarized on October 23, 1981. Also attached as an exhibit was a $5.50 receipt showing this amount was paid on October 23, 1981 for Permission to Attend a Civil Trial for Frank Salladino and for two copies.