TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Kadylak v. O'BRIEN

KADYLAK Et Ux. v. O'BRIEN Et Al.

Kadylak v. O'Brien, 32 F. Supp. 281 (W.D. Pa. 1940)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Federal District Courts
Decided
March 27, 1940
Docket
No. 737
Judges
Gibson
Citations
32 F. Supp. 2811940 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3349

Opinion — Gibson

GIBSON, District Judge.

Nicholas Plevel, one of the defendants, after answering the complaint, has moved to dismiss the action under Rule 12 (b) (6), Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S. C.A. following section 723c, which provides that a complaint may be dismissed upon motion for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Rule 12 (b) also provides that a motion making -any of the defenses detailed therein shall be made before pleading if a further pleading is permitted. The motion, as made, must therefore be denied.

The defendant has not lost his right to object to the pleading by filing an answer to the complaint, but may move for judgment on the pleadings, as provided in Rule 12(c). Upon such a motion judgment is proper only when no issue of fact is raised by the pleadings. If we were to treat the instant motion as made under Rule 12(c), it must still be denied.

The only reference to the defendant Plevel in the complaint which tends to charge him with any negligence which caused the injuries in question is found in the seventh paragraph, which follows: “Seventh: While the said plane was under the charge and control of the said David Patterson and his student, Nicholas Plevel, the said plane was so negligently and carelessly operated that it was permitted to descend from the air and strike the said Peter Kadylak, then of the age of 13 years, on a farm near South Greensburg, breaking his arms, crushing his skull and thereby killing him.”

This paragraph is followed by a number of others charging one of the other defendants with the negligent operation of the aeroplane which figured in the accident, and which contradict the allegations as to Plevel in the seventh paragraph. But despite the fact that one part of the complaint contradicts another part, judgment cannot well be rendered in favor of defendant upon the pleadings, as the allegations contained in the seventh paragraph of the complaint, supra, seem to be sufficient. They are practically the same as set forth in Form 10 of the appendix to the Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c.

The motion to dismiss the complaint must be denied.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1940: 31941: 21946: 11970: 21980: 119402026peak 1940 · 3

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Alvera M. Aldabe v. Charles D. Aldabe616 F.2d 1089 (9th Cir. 1980)
  2. Vassardakis v. Parish36 F. Supp. 1002 (S.D.N.Y. 1941)
  3. Barreto v. Otero de Jové99 P.R. Dec. 189 (1970)
  4. Edelman v. Locker6 F.R.D. 272 (E.D. Pa. 1946)
  5. Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of the United States v. Saftlas35 F. Supp. 62 (E.D. Pa. 1940)
  6. United States v. Hole38 F. Supp. 600 (D. Mont. 1941)

Most recent

  1. Alvera M. Aldabe v. Charles D. Aldabe616 F.2d 1089 (9th Cir. 1980)
  2. Rivera Barreto v. Otero Jové99 P.R. 185 (1970)
  3. Barreto v. Otero de Jové99 P.R. Dec. 189 (1970)
  4. Edelman v. Locker6 F.R.D. 272 (E.D. Pa. 1946)
  5. United States v. Hole38 F. Supp. 600 (D. Mont. 1941)
  6. Vassardakis v. Parish36 F. Supp. 1002 (S.D.N.Y. 1941)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list