*1 things gоing ments. There are that are Pennsylvania, COMMONWEALTH of happen. It’s human nature. We’re Appellant,
not God. v. claim for 49 Seller’s reimbursement unbilled receivables dismissed. KARETNY, Appellee. Eli In summary, we conclude sell- Pennsylvania, tax- pay corporate er’s breach Appellant, adjustments purchase price es and was not a materi- agrеement, breach al breach. We affirm the court’s award Asbell, Appellee. Michael
buyer damages arising from seller’s proper breach and remand for the calcula- Pennsylvania. Superior Court of Further, prejudgment tion of interest. we conclude that the court did not err Argued July 2003. finding damages that seller entitled to Filed Oct. 2003. buyer’s paymеnts failure to continue Reargument Denied Dec. non-compete provision agree- However, ment. remand for a deter- average billings
mination of the annual any by En-
include subcontracts awarded firm(s)
gelhardt any controlled
buyer as such subcontracts would financially. buyer
benefit all other re-
spects judgment of trial court is
affirmed. 51 In the WDA part
we affirm in reverse in part, proceedings
remand for further consistent opinion.
with this Jurisdiction is relin-
quished. at 52 In the 2015 WDA part, part
we affirm reverse proceedings
remand for further consistent opinion.
with this Jurisdiction relin-
quished. *2 on Pier 34 operate nightclub
continued Philadelphia, on the Delaware River in imminent that the knowing kill- collapse, collapsing. It did danger of many and others. injuring three quash granted trial court a motion The catastrophe while charge of the oí charge the allowing many continue. and others to appeals. The Commonwealth ¶ 2 quash The defendants move to judge claim and also that the appeal, of risk was correct denyWe the motion ing a dis quash appeal the order affirm charge of a catastro missing phe. Quash Appeal.
1. The Motiоn ¶ 3 urge quash us to Defendants this appeal claiming that Commonwealth’s jurisdiction. de appellate Court lacks argu make two interrelated fendants (1) our jurisdiction that ments: orders, a final and this was not final over 311(d) (2) ille order; that and Pa.R.A.P. jurisdiction our to include gally expands nonfinal orders. question 4 The order 341(b). Pa.R.A.P. nonethe-
final. We See jurisdiction under thаt we have less believe 311(d), permits the Common- Rule Burns, Atty., Asst. Dist. Philadel- Hugh interlocutory ap- certain to take wealth Com., phia, appellant. for peals: DeSimone, Philadelphia, Frank circumstances In a criminal under Sosnov, Wyndoor, Karetny, Leonard law, the Commonwealth provided appellee. an right may take an Asbell, Jenkins, Malvern, L. John case that does end the entire appellee. certifies the Commonwealth where the order will notice of KLEIN, JJ., STEVENS BEFORE: substantially handicap terminate McEWEN, P.J.E. prosecution. KLEIN, BY J.: OPINION 311(d). claiming Pa.R.A.P. jurisdiction, expands our illegally with 49 rule charged Defendants were gen- out statute point that the they allegedly defendants different counts because 5105(с) compatibly erally establishing jurisdiction permits our read sections and 742 appeals only: including implic- from final orders to read 5105 as section jurisdiction. grant We must assume Superior Court shall have exclusive Assembly both that the General intended appeals of all
appellate
*3
effect,
common statutes to have
since to conclude
final orders of the courts of
1
pleas, regardless of the nature of the
otherwise would be
See
Pa.
absurd.
involved,
(statutes
ex-
controversy
relating
§
or the amount
1932
to same
C.S.A.
appeals
by
statute);
such classes of
as are
cept
see
subject are to be read as one
(2) (in
any provision
chapter
of this
within the
1922(1),
§
1
inter-
also
Pa.C.S.A.
Supreme
of the
exclusive
statutes,
presume
must
preting
courts
Court or the Commonwealth Court.
not intend absurd
Assembly
General
did
result, and that it intended entire statute
§
42 Pa.C.S.A. 742.
effective).
to be
¶
explicitly
note to Rule 311 states
5 The
implement
that the rule
enacted to
42
was
¶
In7
the Commonwealth
5105,
§
permits appeals
which
Pa.C.S.A.
311(d).1
properly
has
invoked Rule
The
interlocutory
specified by
from
orders
only felony
question
dismissed
general rule. See Pa.R.A.P.
Note.
Because
charged, risking
5105(c) provides
right
appeal
rules,
speedy
the Commonwealth
interlocutory
provided by
from
orders as
on
proceed
otherwise be forced to
would
law:
charges.
only
It is
after
the misdemeanor
right
appeаl
There shall be a
from
that the Com
charges
disposed
are
interlocutory
such
orders of tribunals
a final judgment
monwealth would have
may
government
and other
units as
be
involving
charges against
all
the defen
by
governing author-
specified
law. The
have a final order
dants and be able to
ity
responsible
shall be
continuous
appeal.
to
which
operation
review of the
of section
(relating
interlocutory appeals by per-
to
¶
If the
were forced
mission)
time to time
and shall from
review,
to seek
it could be unable
to wait
by general
rights
ap-
rule
to
establish
try
felony
on the
the defendants
interlocutory
peal from such classes of
Campana
Jeop-
Double
charge under the
orders,
are
any,
appeals
if
from which
ardy principle. See Commonwealth
to section
regularly permitted pursuant
A.2d
Campana, 455 Pa.
702(b).
(1974) (reestablishing
that under
principle
5105(c).
§
42 Pa.C.S.A.
law, prosecution of defen-
Pennsylvania
stemming
single
charge
dant on
Assembly evidently in-
6 The General
precluded subsequent
episode
criminаl
jurisdiction to in-
expand
tended to
our
charge arising
another
prosecution
on
interlocutory appeals when
clude certain
reasons,
5105(c).
these
way
episode).
from same
section
enacted
proper
borne out
whether the
claims that its certifica-
1. The Commonwealth
decisions in Common-
support
our reсent en banc
sufficient to
tion alone is
Shearer,
(Pa.Su-
Risking Catastrophe. knowingly or person A pre- take reasonable measures fails to Benjamin 10 The Honorable *4 when he mitigate catastrophe, a vent or Lerner, judge with a experienced an risk to without substantial can do so justice, in criminal thor long background himself, of the commits a misdemeanor of the stat analyzed purposes oughly if: degree second involving risking catastrophe a utes official, (1) that he is under he knows he catastrophe.2 a As failing prevent duty to take legal or other contractual 3302(b), noted, § a risking 18 Pa.C.S.A. measures; or such is person that “a catastrophe, provides (2) causing felony degree a of the third if he to the act guilty of he did or assented threatening creates a risk of or fire, explosive or оther of legislature distinguished 13 The (a) dangerous means listed in subsection means to create using some between § of this section.” 18 Pa.C.S.A. a risk that merely ignoring risk added). Of the various means (emphasis strictly must be Penal statutes known. (a), perti to in the one referred subsection re construed, any ambiguities being with “collapse building.”3 of nent to this case accusеd. Common of the solved favor Lassiter, 586, 722 A.2d 554 Pa. 11 if were wealth v. example, the defendants (1998). a 657, legislature created to tear down the recklessly attempting does not create if an actor or ran the misdemeanor pier, and someone was killed steps pre no merely takes being they of killed were the risk but risk because Therefоre, time, the defendants it. since pier under the at the vent working anything done alleged not to have “collapse building.” of are employing would be merely collapse, but Here, pier “employ” caused the defendants did damage, injury widespread potentially scope to determin- 2. Our of review is limited presented selling, dealing otherwisе including the Commonwealth case, in or whether prima the trial transport reverse permits to providing licenses or facie Common- court for abuse of discretion. of 75 Pa. in violation hazardous materials Carbo, (Pa.Su- 822 A.2d wealth v. (relating to hazardous materials C.S. Ch. 83 per.2003). felony of transportation), commits intentionally or degree so if he does first pro- entirety, In its 18 Pa.C.S.A. degree felony second knowingly, or a vides: recklessly. if he does so Causing guilty (b) person Risking catastrophe. —A (a) person Causing catastrophe. —A degree if he reckless- of the third of fire, catastrophe by explosion, causes em- catastrophe in the ly a risk of creates avalanche, flood, building, rе- collapse of fire, explosives or other dan- ployment of gas, material or poison radioactive lease of (a) of this gerous in subsection means listed force or sub- harmful or destructive other section. stance, causing by any other means word-play ignored age the natural forces and This semantic shows collaps- prevent and failed to (risking that in this case the two statutes they ing, cannot be held to have “em- catastrophe) prevent versus are ... ployed] budding,” If criminal irreconcilable conflict. two “ in the tragic resulted event. irreconcilably, is the ‘[i]t statutes conflict permit prosecu language policy the law The dissent relies section 3302 thаt talks of a catas- general provisions tions under the of a trophe by employing “any other means of applicable spe are penal code when there ” causing potentially widespread injury or penal provisions cial available.’ Com damage” to conclude that the Warner, monwealth v. 504 Pa. proper. The real thrust of the dissent’s (1984) (quoting Common defendants, position of a is that as owners Brown, 346 Pa. 29 A.2d wealth v. inviting patrons business to use their facili- (1943)). However, general 796-97 if the ties, they duty failed to act when had a distinguish it statute has elements that (Stevens, concurring do so.4 J. and dis- statute, special the two do not 480.) senting, post simply at This is an- Bershad, conflict at all. way saying thеy failed to 1303, 1308(Pa.Super.1997). *5 Moreover, “any a other catastrophe. ¶ quotation means” out of context is taken one or both 17 This is not a case where general and out of the scheme of the stat- of the crimes contains elements that the complete “by any ute. more quote Although other does not. the two crimes causing рotentially other means of wide- conflict, applied on their do not as to face injury spread damage, including selling, or alleged they do. It is the facts this case dealing providing in or licenses otherwise a one characterizes simply matter how materi- permits transport or to hazardous (or do). not what the defendants did did (relat- in violation of 75 Ch. 83 als Pa.C.S. above, just As demonstrated one can ing transporta- to hazardous materials easily say that not act the defendants did tion)....” they have, they when should as state that ¶ Certainly examples the dissent a prevent failed to Since we driving a full of children school bus cites— alleged can recharacterize the defendаnts’ through light high speed, a red at a rate of fit reus of either acts to into actus a lit match on a sur- dropping flammable crime, we find the statutes conflict. face, dumping or industrial and chemical Assembly spe- 18 Because General affirmative, reckless acts.5 wastes —are cifically failing prevent criminalized to to to a Conversely, allowing patrons go that the catastrophe, presume we cannot restaurant/night knowing club even it will facts that legislature intended under these likely amounts to to take proceed under prosecution be able to prevent catastrophe, action to not caus- Warner, 476 either or both statutes. ing or one. Cf. event, any they duty. as ex- any authority for had such a In 4. The dissent does not cite above, case, might plained because both statutes alleged duty act in defendants’ to irreconcilably Pennsylvania apply to this although arguably might under one exist Pestinikas, permits prosecution law on failure to Super. Commonwealth v. 421 Pa. catastrophe only. (1992) (erahanc), which duty law founded found a to act in criminal Scatena, duty perform in contract. 5. See Commonwealth v. on a assumed (1985). argument, we will assume purposes of (because say- enumerating particular Court could addition irreconcilably and sub- that statutes harmful or destructive forces before ap- stances, 3302(a), catas- “Causing either on face or as conflicted their Section “any ei- plied, generally proscribes could under also prosecution proceed trophe,” initially) causing statutes at wide- potentially ther or both least means of (crimes ele- contained different damage.” Similarly, Bershad or Sec- injury spread ments). Lerner his Judge did not abuse 3302(b), makes “Risking catastrophe,” tion by dismissing of risk- discretion create a “risk in the of.. .other means listed in subsection dangerous ¶ 19 Order affirmed. ” (a).... causing criminalizing In thus of a catastrophe, STEVENS, J., Concurring files a provide list does not claim exhaustive Dissenting Opinion. forces, means, substances, subject AND DISSENTING CONCURRING instead, allows, discre- reasonable STEVENS, BY OPINION J.: unenumerated tion to assess whether other agree substances, I have presently forces, qualify 1 While also means to take under Pa.R.A.P. 311 proscription. interlocutory appeal, the Commonwealth’s ¶ 4 Pennsylvania Supreme Court majority’s I dissent respectfully from the has, least, implicitly recognized that at the that defendant’s opinion alleged conduct scope of Section must exceed 3302(b), proscribed 18 Pa.C.S. enumerated forces in order limit of its I “Risking Catastrophe.” Accordingly, be accom purpose sought serve the *6 vacate the the would plished by the statute. In Commonwealth 3302(b) charge under Section and remand Scatena, Pa. A.2d 1314 v. for trial. (1985), involving a case vast contamination ¶ 2 In Hughes, Commomvealth v. Susquehanna of River from defen (1976), Pennsyl and disposing of industrial practice dants’ Supreme recognized vania Court into mine chemical wastes an abandoned proscribed by ‘risk’ “[t]he [Section of shaft, quantum the Court discussed the 3302(b) by of dangerous is the use means ] necessary to a proof Section ‘consciously a substan disregards one who eschewing charge. requirement unjustifiable thereby tial and risk’ un and evidence, highly precise technical necessarily exposes society to an extraor examples dangerous offered of Court Hughes, Pa. at dinary disaster.” commonly under means that would be (emphasis original). qualify expert testimony stood without to the Contrary majority’s оpinion, example catastrophe. of One as a risk “dangerous pertinent pres means” to the stated: “collapse building” ent case is not of intentionally a school bus driver When 3302(a), enumerated for would full children navigates his bus of school nonsensical, indeed, that de argue be of light high rate through a red at a engaged in the deliberate fendants were escapes collision speed miraculously and collapsing of when testimony no injuries, expert fact, language collapsed. pier, instead, the driver is, needed establish inquiry to our found pertinent guilty of Section 3302. elsewhere
Scatena,
dropped
match
¶ So, too, proprietors must busi- large, densely
ness owners who invite public
clustered into their estab- crowds manage operations
lishments with caution,
special widespread lest devasta- Fire, occupancy, tion occur. and other Pennsylvania, COMMONWEALTH of applicable operations codes to such be- Appellee, speak dangers the inherent of accommo- dating large, public Promoting crowds. using a location known to be unsafe Guy HAUGHWOUT, Appellant. possibly incapable sustаining weight that a great public gathering Superior Pennsylvania. Court predictably bring will to bear on revelers 7,Oct. 2002. Submitted the location’s structure must be consid- Filed Nov. ered the means which one risks a ca- tastrophe. merely means thus transcend Such
“failing catastrophe” as de- *7 3303, which, majori-
scribed
ty acknowledges, punish itself is meant to “merely ignore
those a risk that who compared
known” as have place.
“created the risk” the first simple neglect, not one of
present case is
ignorance, or abandonment of a hazardous threatened to fail without
structure Rather, it is one of
curative intervention. use,
having put a hazardous structure structure, in a dan-
having employed potential and at the ex-
gerous manner It profit. of human for a
pense welfare
was, therefore,
pier, quality, not its stand-alone that creat- put
ed the risk of harm and the wheels
devastation motion.