*1
ington Joseph Ornamental Iron Works G. De Crea, individuals, Appellants,
Francesco and Frank as
v. COMPANY, a WESTERN PENNSYLVANIA WATER corporation, Appellee. Loy, Loy Joseph Joseph Bernice F. Tire F. LOY and t/d/b/a Services, Inc., Appellants, v. COMPANY, a WATER WESTERN PENNSYLVANIA Appellee. corporation, Pennsylvania, Supreme Western District. Sept. 1982. Argued Dec. Decided *2 Murdoch, Keenan, III, Jones, Robert Robert W. C. Gregg, Gerace, for Pittsburgh, appellants. Creehan & Buckler, Bebenek Buckler, Darragh, I. & George Meyer, Eck, Pittsburgh, appellee. ROBERTS, NIX, O’BRIEN, C.J., LARSEN,
Before and FLAHERTY, HUTCHINSON, JJ. McDERMOTT
OPINION McDERMOTT,Justice.
These consolidated cases are appeals of the orders of the Court, entered in favor vacating judgments Pleas of Allegheny in the of Common
appellants1 County.2 Fire
The facts of the are broke underlying dispute simple: out on the at which G. DeFran- appellants Joseph property the fire cesco and Frank Crea a business. Before operated controlled, to the prop- could be it business spread adjacent F. and Bernice on Structures erty appellants Joseph Loy. both were consumed flames. properties suit in
Appellants brought trespass assumpsit against (“West Western Water appellees Pennsylvania the fire was not controlled Penn”), because alleging West Penn failed to in the fire provide pressure near hydrant appellants’ properties. allegations put forth were that West Penn’s had by appellants employees and, result, on the of the fire as a day worked hydrant on, the water off and hydrant sputtered pressure *3 Hence, claimed, its normal the pressure. appellants below fire the control of the Fire Pittsburgh Depart- raged beyond ment the to their causing damage properties. trial the Honorable Emil
The cases went to before Narick Pleas, in the Court of Common and Allegheny County appel in favor. lants obtained verdicts their West Penn appealed Court, the that the com raising argument to the Superior the of the Public usurped authority mon court had pleas (“PUC”). The Court reversed Superior Commission Utility issue, over jurisdiction on this liabili holding appellants’ claims was vested PUC. DeFrancesco v. ty Co., 152, 161, Water 291 435 Pa.Super. Western Pennsylvania 614, (1981).3 A.2d 618 us jurisdiction of the PUC’s was before question 1, in v. Bell of 477 Pa. 383
recently Feingold Pennsylvania, Crea, Joseph Frank in and G. DeFrancesco Appellants in No. 5 are 1. Washington representatives of Mt. capacities and as their individual Joseph Company. Appellants in No. 6 are F. Iron Works Ornamental Loy individually Joseph Tire Loy, behalf of F. and on and Bernice Service, Inc. Code, pursuant the Judicial in this Court is vested 2. Jurisdiction 142, 586, 9, 1976, 42 724. July Pa.C.S.A. § P.L. No. ofAct issue, disposition jurisdiction its on the 3. Due to cases the had no occasion to consider numerous other issues by parties. raised the
377
A.2d 791
and Elkin v. Bell
(1977)
Co. of
Telephone
Pennsyl-
vania,
123,
491 Pa.
371
420 A.2d
In
(1980).
Feingold, we held
that the
of
courts
common
have
pleas
original jurisdiction to
hear
against
suits
public utilities for
from
damages arising
failure to
service.
Pa.
provide adequate
10,
477
at
383 A.2d
also,
130,
491
Elkin,
See
Pa. at
In Elkin we further defined the
of
parameters
our holding
in
Elkin
an
Feingold.
involved
action
the ade-
challenging
of
service,
and
quacy
complainant’s telephone
this Court
there
approved
a bifurcated
procedure
certain situa-
tions,
the
whereby
issue of
is decided
the
liability
by
initially
which
after
the
pleas
court
common
considers
issue of damages
Elkin,
where appropriate.
134,
[WJhere diction and where it complex is a matter requiring special competence, with which judge jury would or could familiar, not be is procedure for the proper court to refer the matter to the appropriate agency. Also weigh- ing in the should consideration be the need for uniformity consistency and the agency policy legislative intent. Id. (emphasis original). Feingold
Both and Elkin considered the jurisdiction ques- tion in of the Public light Law,4 which charges PUC to rules and prescribe regulations the service governing owed their public utilities to customers and to by determine the reasonableness, of that adequacy sufficiency service. 66 (replaced P.S. Pa.C.S.A. §§ §§ *4 1505). That the PUC should have to primary jurisdiction determine when its rules have been disregarded is not a only mandate but a the statutory precept recognizing sometimes esoteric and technical nature of and reasons the agency’s rules. We have found the salutary legislative intent to courts, install the rather than the as the initial arbiters Elkin, 132, these matters. See 491 Pa. at complex 420 376; 6, A.2d at 477 Pa. 383 Feingold, A.2d at 793. seq., 28, 1937, 1053, I, et May 4. Act of P.L. art. 1 ef 66 P.S. 1101 § § seq., Code, repealed replaced 1, July The Public Act of 1978, 598, seq., seq. et et 1 P.L. No. 66 Pa.C.S.A. 101 § § however, is not one us, now before controversy reasonableness, or adequacy sufficiency in which the general Resolu is drawn into question. of a service utility’s public no rule or upon regula claims depended tion of appellant’s PUC, no of the expertise tion on the peculiar predicated the or facilities owed no of service agency policy, question or standard of safety and no particular general public, Rather, the gravamen the PUC. convenience articulated by authority was within the prescan at trial allegations the failed to negligently the courts, i.e., utility required. service provide of situation in Elkin: this sort addressed precisely
We the within peculiarly matter is not one Where ... the which the courts or but is one area of agency’s expertise, must determine, the court well-suited are jury equally cases, it be In such would its responsibility. not abdicate of referral the bifurcated procedure wasteful to employ forth- benefits would be as no PUC], appreciable [to coming. Involved omitted). (footnote 420 A.2d at
491 Pa. at entitled to were of whether appellants here is not a question a certain gener- or whether under agency regulations, Resolv- was disregarded. water pressure al rule governing failed to utility of whether the question the essential ing recondite knowl- no requires its mandated duties perform of the ordinary falls within the scope experience edge of our courts.5 business Superior the orders of we vacate
Accordingly, of all that court for disposition these cases to and remand Court. before, by, but not decided issues raised ROBERTS, J., files a concurring opinion. that, in which just or the manner as the form of an action noteWe courts, automatically jurisdiction vest does not is titled public regulated qualifies party as a to an action mere fact that jurisdiction. original It is not to utility the courts of does not divest claims, underlying look in words, we magic but to the essence of determining jurisdiction lies. where
ROBERTS, Justice, concurring. The in engages a determination of majority unnecessarily whether appellants’ complaint alleging from injury appel- lee’s failure maintain to water adequate pressure presents claim that should be resolved the Public Commis- by sion, for on has, this record it is clear that the for PUC all practical resolved the purposes, already Appellee claim. asserted in its trial that pleadings “Rule No. 17” of tariff, applicable approved by exonerated appellee from The tariff liability. PUC-approved provides:
“LIABILITY OF COMPANY (a) The in Company shall not or under any way any circumstances be held to responsible or any person persons for any loss or for in damage any deficiency pressure, volume or of water due cause supply any whatsoever. will to use undertake reasonable care and Company diligence in order to and avoid prevent interruptions service, fluctuations in the but it cannot and does not guarantee such will occur. that not
(b) The shall in no event be liable for any damage or inconvenience break, caused reason of any leak or defect the Customer’s service pipe fixtures.” In of light express tariff, language referral of the matter to the PUC would not advance the resolution of the present dispute.
I am that, satisfied because the PUC has approved appel- lee’s tariff on provision liability inadequate pres- sure, the Common Pleas of Allegheny County assumed jurisdiction over the present controversy. Thus I concur in the vacation of order of the Superior Court and the remand to court for the disposition appellee’s remaining claims of error.