operative facts supporting claim in Pennsylvania

2025Appellants rely on Romah v. Hygienic Sanitation Co., 705 A.2d 841 (Pa. Super. 1997), affirmed, 737 A.2d 249 (Pa. 1999), in which this Court explained that “[a] new cause of action arises if ‘the amendment proposes a different theory or different kind of negligence than one previously raised or if the operative facts supporting the claim are changed.’” Id. at 857 (quoting Junk v. East End Fire Dep’t, 396 A.2d 1269, 1277 (Pa. Super. 1978)).

2019Corp., [] 564 A.2d 919, 928 ([Pa. Super.] 1989) (en banc); see also Echeverria v. Holley, [] 142 A.3d 29, 37 (Pa. Super. 2016) (“amendment introducing a new cause of action will not be permitted after the statute of limitations - 18 - J-A02008-19 has run in favor of a defendant” (brackets and citation omitted)) []; Junk v. East End Fire Dep’t, [] 396 A.2d 1269, 1277-78 ([Pa. Super.] 1978). “[T]he test is whether an attempt is made to state facts which give rise to a wholly distinct and different legal obligation against the defendant.” Hodgen v. Summers, [] 555 A.2d 214, 215 ([Pa. Super. 1989]

2025“Stated differently, an amendment proposes a different theory or a different kind of negligence if the operative facts supporting the claim are changed.” Id. at 1211 .

2010Appellant relies on Matos to claim that “a new cause of action arises if the amendment proposes a different theory or a different kind of negligence than the one previously raised or if the operative facts supporting the claim are changed.” Id. ¶ 14 However, in light of our liberal view of interpreting pleadings, this Court observed in Reynolds that an amendment does not introduce a new cause of action if it “merely adds to or amplifies the original complaint or if the original complaint states a cause of action showing that the plaintiff has a legal right to recover what is claimed in the sub

2020Further, we observed that “[a] new cause of action does arise … if the amendment proposes a different theory or a different kind of negligence than the one previously raised or if the operative facts supporting the claim are changed.” Id. at 304 (citations and emphasis omitted); see also John Goffredo and Sons, Inc. v. S.M.G.

2015Chaney v. Meadville Medical Center, 912 A.2d 300, 303-304 (Pa. Super. 2006) (emphasis supplied).

2019“A new cause of action arises if . . . the operative facts supporting the claim are changed.” Matos v. Rivera, 648 A.2d 337, 340 (Pa. Super. 1994) (citation and quotation marks omitted).

2010Appellant relies on Matos to claim that “a new cause of action arises if the amendment proposes a different theory or a different kind of negligence than the one previously raised or if the operative facts supporting the claim are changed.” Id. ¶ 14 However, in light of our liberal view of interpreting pleadings, this Court observed in Reynolds that an amendment does not introduce a new cause of action if it “merely adds to or amplifies the original complaint or if the original complaint states a cause of action showing that the plaintiff has a legal right to recover what is claimed in the sub

2017“A new cause of action does arise . . . if the amendment proposes a different theory or a different kind of negligence than the one previously raised or if the operative facts supporting the claim are changed.” Daley [supra at] 361[.] Id. at 169 (two citations omitted).

1991“A new cause of action does arise ... if the amendment proposes a different theory or a different kind of negligence than the one previously raised or if the operative facts supporting the claim are changed.” Daley v. John Wanamaker, 317 Pa.Super. 348 , 464 A.2d 355, 361 (1983) citing Junk v. East End Fire Department, supra. Appellant here is clearly seeking to allege something other than “ordinary negligence” in her proposed amendments and is basing this theory of recovery on facts which will place Appellees outside of the protection of Section 603.

2025See Commonwealth v. Mance, 619 A.2d 1378, 1381 (Pa.Super. 1993) (holding that where there is conflicting testimony on subject of entrapment, conflict is for jury to resolve).

2024See Commonwealth v. Mance, 619 A.2d 1378, 1381 (Pa. Super. 1993) (holding that where there is conflicting testimony on the subject of entrapment, the conflict is for the jury to resolve).

1997"A new cause of action does arise ... if the amendment proposes a different theory or a different kind of negligence than the one previously raised or if the operative facts supporting the claim are changed.” Willett v. Evergreen Homes, Inc., 407 Pa.Super. 141 , 595 A.2d 164, 169 , appeal denied, 529 Pa. 623 , 600 A.2d 539 (1991).

1997"A new cause of action does arise ... if the amendment proposes a different theory or a different kind of negligence than the one previously raised or if the operative facts supporting the claim are changed.” Willett v. Evergreen Homes, Inc., 407 Pa.Super. 141 , 595 A.2d 164, 169 , appeal denied, 529 Pa. 623 , 600 A.2d 539 (1991).

2025Rachlin v. Edmison, 813 A.2d 862, 871-72 (Pa.Super. 2002) (emphasis added).

2023Co. v. Roe, 650 A.2d 94, 103 (Pa. Super. 1994).

2020Corp., 446 A.2d 255, 256 (Pa. Super. 1982) (“In the context of amendment of pleadings, we have defined a new cause of action as a ‘different theory’ or ‘basis for recovery.’”).

2019Corp., [] 564 A.2d 919, 928 ([Pa. Super.] 1989) (en banc); see also Echeverria v. Holley, [] 142 A.3d 29, 37 (Pa. Super. 2016) (“amendment introducing a new cause of action will not be permitted after the statute of limitations - 18 - J-A02008-19 has run in favor of a defendant” (brackets and citation omitted)) []; Junk v. East End Fire Dep’t, [] 396 A.2d 1269, 1277-78 ([Pa. Super.] 1978). “[T]he test is whether an attempt is made to state facts which give rise to a wholly distinct and different legal obligation against the defendant.” Hodgen v. Summers, [] 555 A.2d 214, 215 ([Pa. Super. 1989]

2019Corp., [] 564 A.2d 919, 928 ([Pa. Super.] 1989) (en banc); see also Echeverria v. Holley, [] 142 A.3d 29, 37 (Pa. Super. 2016) (“amendment introducing a new cause of action will not be permitted after the statute of limitations - 18 - J-A02008-19 has run in favor of a defendant” (brackets and citation omitted)) []; Junk v. East End Fire Dep’t, [] 396 A.2d 1269, 1277-78 ([Pa. Super.] 1978). “[T]he test is whether an attempt is made to state facts which give rise to a wholly distinct and different legal obligation against the defendant.” Hodgen v. Summers, [] 555 A.2d 214, 215 ([Pa. Super. 1989]

2019Corp., [] 564 A.2d 919, 928 ([Pa. Super.] 1989) (en banc); see also Echeverria v. Holley, [] 142 A.3d 29, 37 (Pa. Super. 2016) (“amendment introducing a new cause of action will not be permitted after the statute of limitations - 18 - J-A02008-19 has run in favor of a defendant” (brackets and citation omitted)) []; Junk v. East End Fire Dep’t, [] 396 A.2d 1269, 1277-78 ([Pa. Super.] 1978). “[T]he test is whether an attempt is made to state facts which give rise to a wholly distinct and different legal obligation against the defendant.” Hodgen v. Summers, [] 555 A.2d 214, 215 ([Pa. Super. 1989]

2013“Anew cause of action arises if “the amendment proposes a different theory or a different kind of negligence than the one previously raised or if the operative facts supporting the claim are changed.” Id. (citation omitted). “[Djenial of a petition to amend, based on nothing more than unreasonable delay, is an abuse of discretion.” Capobianchi, supra at 347 (citation omitted).

2013“The timeliness of the request to amend is a factor to be considered, but... only insofar as it presents a question of prejudice to the opposing party, as by loss of witnesses or eleventh hour surprise.” Id. (citation omitted).

2010In Connor v. Allegheny General Hospital, 501 Pa. 306, 309-310 , 461 A.2d 600, 602 (1983), the plaintiff claimed the trial court erred in refusing to allow her to amend her complaint to allege the hospital defendant was negligent in its undue delay in providing care, when her original pleading alleged only affirmative acts of negligence.

2010In Connor v. Allegheny General Hospital, 501 Pa. 306, 309-310 , 461 A.2d 600, 602 (1983), the plaintiff claimed the trial court erred in refusing to allow her to amend her complaint to allege the hospital defendant was negligent in its undue delay in providing care, when her original pleading alleged only affirmative acts of negligence.

1997In Krevitz v. City of Philadelphia, 167 Pa.Cmwlth. 412 , 648 A.2d 353, 356-357 (1994), the Commonwealth Court explained the application of the discovery rule when a plaintiff seeks to amend his complaint after the expiration of the two-year statute of limitations, as follows: This two year period begins to run “as soon as the right to institute and maintain suit arises; lack of knowledge, mistake or misunderstanding do not toll the running of the statute of limitations.” Pocono International Raceway v. Pocono Produce, 503 Pa. 80, 84 , 468 A.2d 468, 471 (1983).

1997In Krevitz v. City of Philadelphia, 167 Pa.Cmwlth. 412 , 648 A.2d 353, 356-357 (1994), the Commonwealth Court explained the application of the discovery rule when a plaintiff seeks to amend his complaint after the expiration of the two-year statute of limitations, as follows: This two year period begins to run “as soon as the right to institute and maintain suit arises; lack of knowledge, mistake or misunderstanding do not toll the running of the statute of limitations.” Pocono International Raceway v. Pocono Produce, 503 Pa. 80, 84 , 468 A.2d 468, 471 (1983).

1997In Krevitz v. City of Philadelphia, 167 Pa.Cmwlth. 412 , 648 A.2d 353, 356-357 (1994), the Commonwealth Court explained the application of the discovery rule when a plaintiff seeks to amend his complaint after the expiration of the two-year statute of limitations, as follows: This two year period begins to run “as soon as the right to institute and maintain suit arises; lack of knowledge, mistake or misunderstanding do not toll the running of the statute of limitations.” Pocono International Raceway v. Pocono Produce, 503 Pa. 80, 84 , 468 A.2d 468, 471 (1983).

1997In Krevitz v. City of Philadelphia, 167 Pa.Cmwlth. 412 , 648 A.2d 353, 356-357 (1994), the Commonwealth Court explained the application of the discovery rule when a plaintiff seeks to amend his complaint after the expiration of the two-year statute of limitations, as follows: This two year period begins to run “as soon as the right to institute and maintain suit arises; lack of knowledge, mistake or misunderstanding do not toll the running of the statute of limitations.” Pocono International Raceway v. Pocono Produce, 503 Pa. 80, 84 , 468 A.2d 468, 471 (1983).

1996See also Jaindl v. Mohr, 432 Pa.Super. 220, 229-30 , 637 A.2d 1353, 1358 (1994) (refusing to allow amendment where initial complaint in defamation was based solely upon the conduct of the defendant, while amended pleadings would include the conduct of others acting as defendant’s agent), affirmed, 541 Pa. 163 , 661 A.2d 1362 (1995); Wilson v. Howard Johnson Restaurant, 421 Pa. 455, 459-61 , 219 A.2d 676, 678-79 (1966) (where plaintiffs original complaint was based upon defendant’s negligence in permitting ice to form on its sidewalk, an amendment to charge defendant with maintaining a potentia

1996See also Jaindl v. Mohr, 432 Pa.Super. 220, 229-30 , 637 A.2d 1353, 1358 (1994) (refusing to allow amendment where initial complaint in defamation was based solely upon the conduct of the defendant, while amended pleadings would include the conduct of others acting as defendant’s agent), affirmed, 541 Pa. 163 , 661 A.2d 1362 (1995); Wilson v. Howard Johnson Restaurant, 421 Pa. 455, 459-61 , 219 A.2d 676, 678-79 (1966) (where plaintiffs original complaint was based upon defendant’s negligence in permitting ice to form on its sidewalk, an amendment to charge defendant with maintaining a potentia

1996See also Jaindl v. Mohr, 432 Pa.Super. 220, 229-30 , 637 A.2d 1353, 1358 (1994) (refusing to allow amendment where initial complaint in defamation was based solely upon the conduct of the defendant, while amended pleadings would include the conduct of others acting as defendant’s agent), affirmed, 541 Pa. 163 , 661 A.2d 1362 (1995); Wilson v. Howard Johnson Restaurant, 421 Pa. 455, 459-61 , 219 A.2d 676, 678-79 (1966) (where plaintiffs original complaint was based upon defendant’s negligence in permitting ice to form on its sidewalk, an amendment to charge defendant with maintaining a potentia

1996See also Jaindl v. Mohr, 432 Pa.Super. 220, 229-30 , 637 A.2d 1353, 1358 (1994) (refusing to allow amendment where initial complaint in defamation was based solely upon the conduct of the defendant, while amended pleadings would include the conduct of others acting as defendant’s agent), affirmed, 541 Pa. 163 , 661 A.2d 1362 (1995); Wilson v. Howard Johnson Restaurant, 421 Pa. 455, 459-61 , 219 A.2d 676, 678-79 (1966) (where plaintiffs original complaint was based upon defendant’s negligence in permitting ice to form on its sidewalk, an amendment to charge defendant with maintaining a potentia

1996See also Jaindl v. Mohr, 432 Pa.Super. 220, 229-30 , 637 A.2d 1353, 1358 (1994) (refusing to allow amendment where initial complaint in defamation was based solely upon the conduct of the defendant, while amended pleadings would include the conduct of others acting as defendant’s agent), affirmed, 541 Pa. 163 , 661 A.2d 1362 (1995); Wilson v. Howard Johnson Restaurant, 421 Pa. 455, 459-61 , 219 A.2d 676, 678-79 (1966) (where plaintiffs original complaint was based upon defendant’s negligence in permitting ice to form on its sidewalk, an amendment to charge defendant with maintaining a potentia

1996See also Jaindl v. Mohr, 432 Pa.Super. 220, 229-30 , 637 A.2d 1353, 1358 (1994) (refusing to allow amendment where initial complaint in defamation was based solely upon the conduct of the defendant, while amended pleadings would include the conduct of others acting as defendant’s agent), affirmed, 541 Pa. 163 , 661 A.2d 1362 (1995); Wilson v. Howard Johnson Restaurant, 421 Pa. 455, 459-61 , 219 A.2d 676, 678-79 (1966) (where plaintiffs original complaint was based upon defendant’s negligence in permitting ice to form on its sidewalk, an amendment to charge defendant with maintaining a potentia