# L.F.V., a minor, by her legal guardians K. Varano & J. Varano v. S. Philadelphia H.S. & Philadelphia S.D.

> Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · June 9, 2025

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11067614

## Case

- **Court:** Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** June 9, 2025
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Dumas
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11067614

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- discussing presumptions in resolving the negligence of a minor defendant
- holding that “a governmental party is not immune from liability when its negligence, along with a third[-]party’s negligence, causes harm” (emphasis added)
- stating that the police officer could be held jointly liable for negligently pursuing the fleeing driver

## Opinion text

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

L.F.V., a minor, by her legal guardians :
Kimberly Varano and Joseph Varano, :
and Kimberly Varano and Joseph :
Varano in their own right :
: No. 218 C.D. 2023
v. :
: Argued: June 5, 2024
South Philadelphia High School :
and Philadelphia School District, :
Appellants :

BEFORE: HONORABLE RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, President Judge1
HONORABLE PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge
HONORABLE ANNE E. COVEY, Judge
HONORABLE MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge
HONORABLE LORI A. DUMAS, Judge
HONORABLE STACY WALLACE, Judge
HONORABLE MATTHEW S. WOLF, Judge

OPINION BY
JUDGE DUMAS FILED: June 9, 2025

The Philadelphia School District (District) appeals the order entered by
the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County (trial court), which overruled
the District’s preliminary objections. On appeal, the District contends it is immune
from any liability stemming from the alleged sexual assault of L.F.V. by two other
minor students. We affirm.

1
This case was argued before a panel of the Court that included Judge Ceisler. Judge
Ceisler’s service with this Court ended on January 3, 2025, before the Court reached a decision in
this matter. Accordingly, President Judge Cohn Jubelirer was substituted for Judge Ceisler as a
panel member in this matter and considered the matter as submitted on the briefs.
I. BACKGROUND2
In October of 2021, three minor students (two male, one female)
attended a District school. All three students were enrolled in special education and
required supervision by the District employees. During a physical education class,
the two males pushed and pulled L.F.V. behind the gym bleachers, into a bathroom,
and sexually assaulted her, following which she returned to class. The District
employees supervising the class allegedly did not witness the assault.
Subsequently, Kimberly and Joseph Varano sued the District on behalf
of L.F.V. and individually in their own right (collectively, Plaintiffs). Plaintiffs
raised two counts of negligence. First, on behalf of L.F.V., Plaintiffs alleged that the
District owed L.F.V. a duty to protect her while at school and breached that duty
through various actions. For example, the District failed to, inter alia, (1) monitor
all three minors and the gym, hallway, and bathroom; and (2) supervise the
employees overseeing the class. As a result of the District’s negligence, Plaintiffs
contended L.F.V. suffered mental anguish, educational setbacks, exacerbation of her
preexisting psychological conditions, and impairment of her earning capacity,
among other injuries.
Second, Plaintiffs alleged the District negligently inflicted emotional
distress on Kimberly and Joseph Varano. In support, Plaintiffs averred that the
District had a duty to supervise and protect L.F.V. while at school. Plaintiffs asserted

2
In presenting the background, and in reviewing an order “resolving preliminary
objections, we must accept as true all well-pleaded, material, and relevant facts alleged in the
complaint and every inference that is fairly deducible from those facts. We may reject conclusions
of law, unwarranted inferences from facts, argumentative allegations, or expressions of opinion.”
Marshall v. Se. Pa. Transp. Auth., 300 A.3d 537, 540 n.1 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2023) (cleaned up). The
parties stipulated that South Philadelphia High School should be dismissed without prejudice and
the caption amended. Stip., 9/27/22. However, the parties have not requested that this Court
amend the caption.

2
that upon learning of the sexual assault, they suffered emotional distress and lost
wages due to taking time off from work. As a result, Plaintiffs requested monetary
damages.
The District filed preliminary objections contending, inter alia, that it
is immune under what is commonly known as the Political Subdivision Tort Claims
Act (Act), recodified at 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 8541-8542. Specifically, the District asserted
that Plaintiffs failed to allege that a District employee sexually assaulted L.F.V.,
which would have prevented the District from invoking immunity. Plaintiffs filed
an answer to the preliminary objections.3
The trial court overruled the District’s preliminary objections, primarily
relying on unreported state and federal decisions as well as legislative history. Trial
Ct. Order, 12/12/22. Per the court, Plaintiffs pleaded sufficient facts that the District’s
negligent omissions—failing to supervise its employees during gym class—resulted
in Plaintiffs’ injuries. Trial Ct. Op., 7/11/23, at 5.
The District timely filed a motion to certify the order for an
interlocutory appeal, which the trial court denied. Trial Ct. Order, 1/20/23. The
District timely filed a petition for permission to appeal with this Court on February
17, 2023. This Court granted the petition, reasoning that the trial court’s order was
immediately appealable as a collateral order under Pa.R.A.P. 313 and Brooks v.
Ewing Cole, Inc., 259 A.3d 359 (Pa. 2021). Although the trial court’s order was
immediately appealable, under Pa.R.A.P. 1316, a timely petition for permission to
appeal is treated as a notice of appeal. Pa.R.A.P. 1316.4 Appellants timely filed a

3
Although it was “procedurally improper to raise the defense of immunity in preliminary
objections,” Plaintiffs waived any procedural defect by filing an answer instead of preliminary
objections to the District’s preliminary objections. N.W.M. ex rel. J.M. v. Langenbach, 316 A.3d 7,
13 n.21 (Pa. 2024).
4
Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1316(a) provides that this Court must “treat a

3
court-ordered Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement, and the trial court filed a responsive
opinion.
II. ISSUE
The District raises a single issue: whether it is immune under the Act
because a third party, and not the District or its employees, committed the sexual
abuse. Dist.’s Br. at 4.
III. DISCUSSION5
Under the Act, “a local agency may be liable for damages that are (1)
recoverable under common law or a statute creating a cause of action; (2) caused by
the negligent act of the local agency or its employees acting within the scope of their
employment; and (3) caused by one of the specific acts enumerated in Section
8542(b) of the Act.” West ex rel. S.W. v. Pittsburgh Pub. Schs., 327 A.3d 340, 344
(Pa. Cmwlth.) (en banc) (cleaned up), appeal filed, (Pa., No. 339 WAL 2024, filed
Dec. 6, 2024). In other words, the Act provides that a school district has
governmental immunity and is immune from suit subject to nine categories of
exceptions. 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 8501, 8541-8542.6
Generally, no school district “shall be liable for any damages on

request for discretionary review of an order that is immediately appealable as a notice of appeal if
a party has filed a timely petition for permission to appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1311.” Pa.R.A.P.
1316(a). Rule 1311(a), in turn, states in relevant part that an “appeal may be taken by permission
from an interlocutory order . . . for which certification pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 702(b) was denied
. . . .” Pa.R.A.P. 1311(a). Here, the District filed a petition for permission to appeal from the trial
court’s order denying Section 702(b) certification. Pa.R.A.P. 1311(b).
5
Statutory interpretation is an issue of law subject to a de novo standard of review. MFW
Wine Co. v. Pa. Liquor Control Bd., 318 A.3d 100, 113 n.22, 122 (Pa. 2024). In construing the Act,
we comply with the Statutory Construction Act of 1972. 1 Pa.C.S. §§ 1501-1991; MFW Wine, 318
A.3d at 131.
6
The Act defines “local agency” as a “government unit other than the Commonwealth
government.” See Zauflik v. Pennsbury Sch. Dist., 104 A.3d 1096, 1100 (Pa. 2014). The term
includes, but is not limited to, a school district. Id.

4
account of any injury to a person or property caused by any act of the [school district]
or an employee thereof or any other person.” 42 Pa.C.S. § 8541.7 A school district,
however, may be liable if two conditions are satisfied. Id. § 8542(a). First, the
plaintiff’s “damages would be recoverable under common law . . . .” Id. § 8542(a)(1).
Second, the plaintiff’s injury “was caused by the negligent acts of the [school
district] or an employee thereof acting within the scope of his office or duties with
respect to one” of the nine categories of exceptions at 42 Pa.C.S. § 8542(b)(1)-(9).
Id. § 8542(a)(2).8
In turn, Section 8542(b) begins with the clause: “The following acts by
a local agency or any of its employees may result in the imposition of liability on a
local agency” and then lists nine categories of acts that may result in liability. Id. §
8542(b) (emphasis added) (prefatory clause). The initial eight categories, which
were enacted contemporaneously with the Act in 1980, specify acts “of the local

7
“Except as otherwise provided in this subchapter, no local agency shall be liable for any
damages on account of any injury to a person or property caused by any act of the local agency or
an employee thereof or any other person.” 42 Pa.C.S. § 8541.
8
Section 8542(a) of the Act follows:
(a) Liability imposed.--A local agency shall be liable for damages on account of
an injury to a person or property within the limits set forth in this subchapter if both
of the following conditions are satisfied and the injury occurs as a result of one of
the acts set forth in subsection (b):
(1) The damages would be recoverable under common law or a statute creating
a cause of action if the injury were caused by a person not having available a
defense under section 8541 (relating to governmental immunity generally) or
section 8546 (relating to defense of official immunity); and
(2) The injury was caused by the negligent acts of the local agency or an
employee thereof acting within the scope of his office or duties with respect to
one of the categories listed in subsection (b). As used in this paragraph,
“negligent acts” shall not include acts or conduct which constitutes a crime,
actual fraud, actual malice or willful misconduct.
42 Pa.C.S. § 8542(a).

5
agency” that could result in liability Id. § 8542(b)(1)-(8). For example, if the
plaintiff’s “injury was caused by the negligent acts of the local agency . . . with
respect to” a “dangerous condition of trees, traffic signs, lights or other traffic
controls,” then the local agency could be liable. Id. § 8542(a)(2), (b)(4); Crowell v.
City of Phila., 613 A.2d 1178, 1184 (Pa. 1992).
In 2019, the legislature added a ninth category, which specifies conduct
constituting “an offense enumerated under section 5551(7) (relating to no limitation
applicable) if the injuries to the plaintiff were caused by actions or omissions of the
local agency which constitute negligence.” Id. § 8542(b)(9) (sexual abuse
exception). Section 5551(7) of the Judicial Code, in turn, identifies two categories
of offenses, both of which require a minor victim: (1) selected offenses under the
Crimes Code; and (2) conspiracy or solicitation to commit any of the selected
offenses, which include sexual assault. Id. § 5551(7); City of Phila. v. J.S., 316 A.3d
619 (Pa. 2024) (per curiam order) (granting appeal to resolve whether the sexual
abuse exception applies only to minors).9
9
Section 8542(b) of the Act states:
(b) Acts which may impose liability.--The following acts by a local agency or any
of its employees may result in the imposition of liability on a local agency:
....
(4) Trees, traffic controls and street lighting.--A dangerous condition of trees,
traffic signs, lights or other traffic controls, street lights or street lighting
systems under the care, custody or control of the local agency, except that the
claimant to recover must establish that the dangerous condition created a
reasonably foreseeable risk of the kind of injury which was incurred and that
the local agency had actual notice or could reasonably be charged with notice
under the circumstances of the dangerous condition at a sufficient time prior to
the event to have taken measures to protect against the dangerous condition.
....
(9) Sexual abuse.--Conduct which constitutes an offense enumerated under
section 5551(7) (relating to no limitation applicable) if the injuries to the

6
A. Immunity Under 42 Pa.C.S. § 8541
1. Arguments
The District contends that it is immune “from the acts of third parties”
under 42 Pa.C.S. § 8541. Dist.’s Br. at 12. According to the District, it only loses
this immunity when a District employee commits sexual abuse. Id. Because two
minors—and not a District employee—committed the sexual abuse, the District
reasons it is immune from suit even if the District’s “negligent omissions caused her
injuries . . . .” Id. at 12-15 (discussing Chevalier v. City of Phila., 532 A.2d 411 (Pa.
1987), and Mascaro v. Youth Study Ctr., 523 A.2d 1118 (Pa. 1987) (Mascaro II)).
Plaintiffs distinguish Chevalier and Mascaro II on their facts. Pls.’ Br.
at 38-39. In their view, the District could be jointly liable with a third party for
negligence. Id. at 27-29 (discussing Crowell and Jones v. Chieffo, 700 A.2d 417 (Pa.
1997) (plurality)). Plaintiffs emphasize that the District should be liable for
negligence that enabled the sexual abuse—not the sexual abuse itself. Id. at 16-17.
2. Discussion
In Mascaro II, our Supreme Court resolved immunity to a negligence
claim in which “the plaintiff’s family had been grievously injured by a person who
had escaped from” a Philadelphia correctional facility but the injuries “occurred well

plaintiff were caused by actions or omissions of the local agency which
constitute negligence.
42 Pa.C.S. § 8542(b)(9) (emphasis added). Section 5551(7) of the Judicial Code follows:
An offense under any of the following provisions of 18 Pa.C.S. (relating to crimes
and offenses), or a conspiracy or solicitation to commit an offense under any of the
following provisions of 18 Pa.C.S. if the offense results from the conspiracy or
solicitation, if the victim was under 18 years of age at the time of the offense:
....
Section 3124.1 (relating to sexual assault).
42 Pa.C.S. § 5551(7).

7
away from” Philadelphia-owned property. Crowell, 613 A.2d at 1180 (summarizing
Mascaro II). The Mascaro II Court reasoned that Philadelphia was immune “for any
damages on account of any injury to a person or property caused by any act of the
local agency or an employee thereof or any other person.” Id. (emphasis in original).
Our Supreme Court rejected the plaintiff’s attempt to invoke the real estate exception
to immunity, which applies “only to those cases where it is alleged that the artificial
condition or defect of the land itself causes the injury, not merely when it facilitates
the injury by the acts of others, whose acts are outside the statute’s scope of liability.”
Id. (emphasis in original).
In Chevalier, the plaintiff was mugged in a Philadelphia-maintained
parking lot. Chevalier, 532 A.2d at 412-13.10 The Chevalier Court reasoned that
under the Act, Philadelphia was immune because “harm caused by third [parties]
may not be imputed to a local agency or its employees.” Id. (discussing, inter alia,
Mascaro II). Because the plaintiff’s “injuries were caused by the criminal acts of a
third party, [Philadelphia was] insulated from all liability for the harm caused by
such a party.” Id. (emphasis in original). Subsequently, courts applied the holdings
strictly.
In Crowell, our Supreme Court held we misunderstood its prior
decisions. In Crowell, the plaintiffs and a drunk driver were each driving in opposite
directions. Crowell, 613 A.2d at 1179. Philadelphia, however, had wrongly placed a

10
The plaintiff asserted that his injuries were the result of Philadelphia’s failure to
sufficiently light the parking lot. Chevalier, 532 A.2d at 413. The trial court granted Philadelphia’s
motion for judgment on the pleadings, reasoning that the complaint failed to allege that
Philadelphia knew or should have known of a dangerous condition due to the poor lighting. Id. at
412 (dismissing the complaint with prejudice without addressing Philadelphia’s immunity). This
Court reversed, reasoning that the trial court should have granted the plaintiff leave to amend the
complaint. Id. at 413. Our Supreme Court reversed this Court and affirmed the trial court on other
grounds. Id.

8
sign that directed the drunk driver to turn into the plaintiff’s vehicle, injuring them.
Id. A jury found Philadelphia was 20% negligent, and this Court reversed the
judgment against Philadelphia based on Mascaro II. Id. at 1180.11
The Crowell Court reversed, holding we had misconstrued Mascaro II,
which involved vicarious liability. Id. at 1181, 1183.12 Our Supreme Court then
explained how to identify factual scenarios that could potentially trigger one of the
exceptions to immunity. Id. at 1183. To invoke one of the immunity exceptions
properly, the “specific facts” must “fall squarely within one of the exceptions.” Id.
at 1184. If the specific facts allege the local agency’s joint negligence with the third
party (as opposed to vicarious or secondary liability), then the local agency could be
held liable. Id. (holding that when “a plaintiff is injured and brings an action against
a governmental unit, the governmental unit can be subjected to liability despite the
presence of an additional tortfeasor if the governmental unit’s actions would be
sufficient to preclude it from obtaining indemnity from another for injuries rendered
to a third person”); accord Jones, 700 A.2d at 419 (interpreting Crowell as holding
“a municipality can be liable despite the presence of a third party if it is jointly
negligent”).13
11
The plaintiffs sued Philadelphia and the drunk driver, contending that Philadelphia was
not immune under one of the extant exceptions to immunity. Crowell, 613 A.2d at 1179.
Specifically, the fourth exception stated that Philadelphia could be liable for a dangerous condition
from a traffic sign. Id. On appeal to this Court, we reversed the judgment entered against
Philadelphia, reasoning that under Mascaro II, Philadelphia could not be held jointly liable for the
tortious acts of “any other person,” i.e., the other driver. Id.
12
Our Supreme Court reiterated that Philadelphia was immune to claims “based upon a
theory of vicarious liability.” Crowell, 613 A.2d at 1183. None of the 42 Pa.C.S. § 8542 exceptions
apply absent the negligent actions of a local agency or its employee. Id. & nn.8-9 (“a fundamental
principle governing the immunity exceptions was the elimination of the imputation of negligence
back through a non-governmental actor to the governmental unit”).
13
“Joint tortfeasor liability, on the other hand, arises when two or more persons acting
together injure another.” Crowell, 613 A.2d at 1181-82 (stating that “joint liability is imposed on a
person by virtue of actions taken in concert with another tortfeasor” (cleaned up)). The Crowell

9
In Jones, our Supreme Court reiterated that a municipality could be held
jointly liable for negligence even if the municipality did not injure the plaintiffs.
Jones, 700 A.2d at 418. In that case, the plaintiffs were injured “when a car being
pursued by the police collided with” the plaintiffs’ car.14 Id. The plaintiffs sued,
inter alia, Philadelphia and the police officer. Id. The defendants successfully
moved for summary judgment, reasoning that they could not be “liable for the
criminal or negligent acts of the fleeing driver” under 42 Pa.C.S. § 8541. Id. at 419.
This Court reversed, reasoning that a jury must decide whether the defendants’
“negligence was a substantial factor causing [the plaintiffs’] harm and whether the
[fleeing] driver’s act was a superseding cause precluding governmental liability.”
Id. Our Supreme Court agreed Philadelphia was not presumptively immune. Id. at
420 (discussing Powell v. Drumheller, 653 A.2d 619 (Pa. 1995)).15 A jury must
resolve whether the defendants’ alleged negligence was a substantial factor in

Court explained that Philadelphia would be immune under 42 Pa.C.S. § 8541 under the following
fact scenario: “an injured person sought to sue the city for injuries he received when scaffolding
around a city owned property collapsed. The cause of the collapse was the unsafe manner in which
the independent contractor constructed the scaffold.” Id. at 1184 n.10 (summarizing Maloney v.
City of Phila., 535 A.2d 209 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1987)). Because the Maloney plaintiff alleged that
Philadelphia failed “to supervise and inspect the acts of another,” i.e., the independent contractor,
this Court held Philadelphia was immune from suit. Id. (explaining that because Philadelphia’s
“purported liability was merely derivative of the contractor’s negligence,” Philadelphia was
immune under “the ‘any other person’ language of § 8541”).
14
The police car did not have a working siren, and the plaintiffs asserted, inter alia, the
municipality negligently failed to maintain the police cars. Jones, 700 A.2d at 419.
15
“In Powell, a decedent’s estate sued a drunk driver and the Commonwealth following a
car accident.” Jones, 700 A.2d at 419. “The estate alleged that the Commonwealth negligently
designed the road where the accident occurred.” Id. The Powell Court held that the
Commonwealth was not immune because a jury could find that although the drunk driver was a
cause, the Commonwealth’s negligent design could also be a cause. Id. The drunk driver’s
criminal negligence, per the Powell Court, was not “a superseding cause relieving [the
Commonwealth] of liability as a matter of law.” Id. A factfinder resolves the issue of concurrent
causation, i.e., whether the municipality’s alleged negligence was a substantial factor in causing
the plaintiff’s injuries. Powell, 653 A.2d at 623.

10
causing the plaintiffs’ injuries. Id.16
In sum, notwithstanding Section 8541’s language stating that a local
agency is immune from liability for harm caused by “any other person,” our Supreme
Court limited the application of that clause to factual scenarios involving vicarious
liability. Crowell, 613 A.2d at 1181, 1183. In contrast, a local agency could be jointly
liable for negligence even if “any other person” harmed the victim. Powell, 653
A.2d at 622, 624 (explaining that “any violation of a criminal statute” does not
constitute “a superseding cause. Instead, the proper focus is not on the criminal
nature of the negligent act, [e.g., sexual assault,] but instead on whether the act was
so extraordinary as not to be reasonably foreseeable”). In short, our Supreme Court
rejected a broad reading of Chevalier and Mascaro II.
Instantly, in accord with our Supreme Court’s rejection, we also rebuff
the District’s broad reading of Section 8541 that would immunize the District for
damages caused by any other person. Chevalier and Mascaro II, which predate the
sexual abuse exception, suggest a sweeping immunity for any harm caused by third
parties. See Chevalier, 532 A.2d at 413; Crowell, 613 A.2d at 1181 (rejecting a broad
interpretation of Mascaro II). Subsequently, our Supreme Court rejected any such
suggestion, reasoning that local agencies can be jointly liable for harm caused by
third parties, including “criminal or negligent acts” of third parties. See Crowell,
613 A.2d at 1183-84; Jones, 700 A.2d at 420. A local agency thus does not have
immunity if the specific, alleged facts “squarely” fall within one of the enumerated
exceptions17 and advance a claim of joint—not vicarious or secondary—liability.

16
The Jones Court did not address whether the plaintiffs’ claims invoked any of the Act’s
exceptions to immunity under 42 Pa.C.S. § 8542. Jones, 700 A.2d at 420 n.4. Our Supreme Court
only rejected Philadelphia’s argument of absolute immunity for harm caused by “any other
person.” Id.; 42 Pa.C.S. § 8541.
17
As discussed herein, the parties dispute the scope of the sexual abuse exception, which

11
Crowell, 613 A.2d at 1183-84; Jones, 700 A.2d at 419.
Accordingly, per Crowell, we examine whether Plaintiffs have alleged
“specific facts” that would establish the District’s joint negligence despite the
presence of additional tortfeasors, i.e., the two minors. See Crowell, 613 A.2d at
1183-84 (explaining that the drunk driver could be a joint tortfeasor); Jones, 700 A.2d
at 419-20 (stating that the police officer could be held jointly liable for negligently
pursuing the fleeing driver). To paraphrase Crowell and Jones, when Plaintiffs are
injured and they sued the District, the District may be liable despite the presence of
the two additional minor tortfeasors if the District could be jointly negligent with the
two minors. See Crowell, 613 A.2d at 1184; Jones, 700 A.2d at 419.
Here, similar to the Crowell and Jones plaintiffs, Plaintiffs have alleged
that the District and its employees’ negligent actions resulted in injury. Like the
wrongly placed sign in Crowell and the police officer pursuing a fleeing driver in
Jones, the District or its employees did not directly injure the minor victim. Cf.
Crowell, 613 A.2d at 1183-84; Jones, 700 A.2d at 419-20. Rather, Plaintiffs alleged
that the District is liable even when their injuries were caused by the criminal acts
of a third party, e.g., a drunk or fleeing driver, or a minor. See 42 Pa.C.S. § 8541;
Crowell, 613 A.2d at 1183-84; Jones, 700 A.2d at 420. For these reasons, we reject
the District’s contention that it is absolutely immune for the harm caused by third
parties, i.e., the two minor students. See Dist.’s Br. at 12.18
would appear to implicate the issue of whether the alleged facts “squarely” fall within such
exception. We explain below that the alleged facts squarely fall within the sexual abuse exception.
18
Given the procedural posture and record, we need not address Plaintiffs’ characterization
of their legal theories in support of their claims. See Pls.’ Br. at 34; Steiner v. Markel, 968 A.2d
1253, 1258 n.11 (Pa. 2009) (noting “a plaintiff is free to proceed on any theory of liability which
the facts alleged in his complaint will support” (cleaned up)); Crowell, 613 A.2d at 1181 & n.4, 1184
(explaining that under 42 Pa.C.S. § 8541, a municipality may not be liable under a theory of
vicarious liability solely because of its governmental status but may be liable under a theory of
joint liability because the municipality’s actions fall within one of the 42 Pa.C.S. § 8542

12
B. Sexual Abuse Exception to Governmental Immunity
To provide context for the parties’ arguments, we reiterate the relevant
statutory language. “The following acts by a local agency or any of its employees
may result in the imposition of liability on a local agency [(prefatory clause)]: [(a)]
Conduct which constitutes an offense enumerated under section 5551(7) (relating to
no limitation applicable) [(subclause (a)), and] [(b)] if the injuries to the plaintiff
were caused by actions or omissions of the local agency which constitute negligence
[(subclause (b))].” 42 Pa.C.S. § 8542(b)(9).19
1. Arguments
The District interprets the sexual abuse exception as requiring that the

exceptions); Jones, 700 A.2d at 420 (holding that “a governmental party is not immune from
liability when its negligence, along with a third[-]party’s negligence, causes harm” (emphasis
added)).
Unlike the plaintiffs in Crowell and Jones, Plaintiffs did not sue the third parties, i.e., the
two minors, as joint tortfeasors. See generally 23 Pa.C.S. §§ 5501-5509 (addressing liability for
the tortious acts of minors); Berman ex rel. Berman v. Phila. Bd. of Educ., 456 A.2d 545, 549 (Pa.
Super. 1983) (discussing presumptions in resolving the negligence of a minor defendant). The only
issue before this Court, however, is the District’s immunity. See Dist.’s Br. at 17 n.3 (stating that
only immunity is at issue and not the “downstream issues when immunity does not apply, such as
the scope of the duty to foresee sexual abuse and the remaining elements of negligence, such as
causation or injuries”). Thus, we do not address whether such alleged tortfeasors are indispensable
parties and whether the factfinder may apportion liability without their presence. See 42 Pa.C.S.
§ 7102(a.2).
19
For ease of discussion, we refer to the initial 42 Pa.C.S. § 8542(b) as the prefatory clause
and demarcate 42 Pa.C.S. § 8542(b)(9) as subclauses (a) and (b). To be precise, upon incorporating
the language of 42 Pa.C.S. § 5551(7) into the language of 42 Pa.C.S. § 8542(b)(9): a local agency
is liable if the “injury was caused by the negligent acts of the local agency or an employee thereof
acting within the scope of his office or duties with respect to” “conduct which constitutes an
offense enumerated under section 5551(7),” which includes (1) an “offense under any of the
following provisions of 18 Pa.C.S. (relating to crimes and offenses), or [(2)] a conspiracy or
solicitation to commit an offense under any of the following provisions of 18 Pa.C.S. if the offense
results from the conspiracy or solicitation, if the victim was under 18 years of age at the time of
the offense: . . . Section 3124.1 (relating to sexual assault)” and “if the injuries to the plaintiff were
caused by actions or omissions of the local agency which constitute negligence.” 42 Pa.C.S. §§
5551(7), 8542 (cleaned up).

13
District engage in proscribed “conduct.” Dist.’s Br. at 15. Specifically, the District
contends that Plaintiffs must first allege that a District employee engaged in conduct
constituting an offense under 42 Pa.C.S. § 5551(7). Id. at 16 (emphasizing subclause
(a)). Second, if Plaintiffs satisfy subclause (a), the District argues that Plaintiffs must
then allege, under subclause (b), that their injuries were caused by the District’s
negligent actions or omissions. Id. at 17. In other words, the qualifying term
“following acts” in the prefatory clause of 42 Pa.C.S. § 8542(b) applies to subclauses
(a) and (b) in the sexual abuse exception. Id. at 18-21; 42 Pa.C.S. § 8542(b)(9).
Plaintiffs counter with their own interpretation. In their view, subclause
(a) contains no limiting language that would require a District employee to engage
in the proscribed conduct. Plaintiffs’ Br. at 33-34. In Plaintiffs’ view, subclause
(b)—the conditional “if” clause—limits Plaintiffs’ negligence claim to injuries
separate from the “sex crime itself.” Id. at 34. In other words, per Plaintiffs, the
District may be negligent for misconduct that enabled the sexual abuse, but not the
abuse itself. Id. at 17 (asserting that “the potential liability of the local agency turns
on the negligence that enabled sexual abuse and not for the sex crime itself”), 23-24,
34-35. Plaintiffs reject the District’s interpretation that would require the District or
its employee to commit sexual abuse. Id. at 26.
2. Discussion20
In McCoy, the defendant, while inside a crowded restaurant, fired a gun
20
“When the words of a statute are clear and free from all ambiguity, the letter of it is not
to be disregarded under the pretext of pursuing its spirit.” 1 Pa.C.S. § 1921(b). To determine
whether a statute is ambiguous, we must interpret the challenged statutory term “in context with
the overall statutory framework in which it appears.” Herold v. Univ. of Pittsburgh, 329 A.3d 1159,
1177 (Pa. 2025) (cleaned up); King v. Burwell, 576 U.S. 473, 486 (2015) (“Our duty, after all, is to
construe statutes, not isolated provisions.” (cleaned up)). If, in the context of the overall statutory
framework, the disputed term has “at least two reasonable interpretations, then the term is
ambiguous.” Herold, 329 A.3d at 1177 (cleaned up); see also Gidor v. Mangus, 322 A.3d 1290 (Pa.
2024) (per curiam order) (granting allocatur on issue of ambiguity). A term may be ambiguous

14
into the kitchen. McCoy, 962 A.2d at 1161-62. The trial court convicted the
defendant for firing a gun “from any location into an occupied structure.” Id.
(cleaned up) (imposing no sentence for this conviction). The trial court interpreted
the statute as proscribing firing a gun “both into and from within the occupied
structure.” Id. The Superior Court affirmed on different grounds, reasoning that the
clause “from any location” meant the defendant could be inside “the occupied
structure when the gun was fired.” Id. Our Supreme Court held the lower courts
erred by failing to interpret the term “from any location into” in context with the
overall statutory provision. Id. at 1166-67 (emphasis added). The lower courts’
interpretations were flawed, per McCoy, because both interpretations required
inserting the term “or from within” into the statute: firing a gun “from any location
into, or from within, an occupied structure.” Id. at 1163 (emphasis in original). Our
Supreme Court thus pruned the emphasized clause out of the original statutory
language: “from any location into an occupied structure.” Id. at 1167.
But our Supreme Court could not harmonize the statutory phrases
“from any location” and “into” “to give full logical effect to both.” Id. (opining that
the parties presented arguments that were not “so weak or implausible that the statute
can be called unambiguous in this context”). Per the Court, the “plain meaning of
the two phrases reveals a latent ambiguity in the statute; one phrase must be
interpreted as modifying or limiting the other,” which required applying the rules of
statutory construction.21 Id.

on its face or, upon applying the term to “extraneous or collateral facts,” the term may be latently
ambiguous. Malt Beverages Distribs. Ass’n v. Pa. Liquor Control Bd., 974 A.2d 1144, 1153 (Pa.
2009); Commonwealth v. McCoy, 962 A.2d 1160, 1167 (Pa. 2009); Steuart v. McChesney, 444 A.2d
659, 663 (Pa. 1982). When the statutory text is “not explicit,” e.g., patently or latently ambiguous,
then we may invoke the rules of statutory construction. 1 Pa.C.S. § 1921(b)-(c).
21
Specifically, one construction was whether the term “‘into’ qualifies the term ‘from any
location’” such that the defendant can be anywhere, i.e., “from any location,” outside the occupied

15
Our Supreme Court applied the rule that we must construe every statute
“to give effect to all its provisions,” i.e., “read all sections of a statute together and
in conjunction with each other, construing them with reference to the entire statute.”
Id. at 1168. An ordinary citizen reading the statute, the Court posited, would
understand that the term “into” modified the meaning of “‘from any location’ to
include only any location from which the shooter can physically shoot ‘into’ the
occupied structure.” Id. Further, the title of the section was “discharge of a firearm
into an occupied structure,” which further supported a “logical reading” that
effectuated all of the statutory language without an absurd result. Id. at 1166, 1168.
In other words, a defendant who fired a gun from inside the occupied structure could
not be convicted of firing a gun “from any location into an occupied structure.” Id.
at 1169 (reversing the conviction).
More recently, in Herold, our Supreme Court construed the term “it” in
a particular clause. 77 P.S. § 1401(c).22 The employer argued that “it” referred to
“compensable disability or death,” which would render the provision as defining
“compensable disability or death” to mean only those conditions occurring within
the four-year timeframe. Herold, 329 A.3d at 1177. In the employer’s view, this

structure and firing a gun “into” the structure. McCoy, 962 A.2d at 1168. The alternative
construction was whether the term “into” qualified the term “occupied structure” such that the
defendant can be anywhere, i.e., “from any location,” outside or inside the occupied structure, as
long as the defendant fired a gun “into” any part of the occupied structure, such as the kitchen. Id.
at 1167-68.
22
“Wherever compensable disability or death is mentioned as a cause for compensation
under this act, it shall mean only compensable disability or death resulting from occupational
disease and occurring within four years after the date of his last employment in such occupation
or industry.” 77 P.S. § 1401(c) (emphasis added). The Workers’ Compensation Act (WC Act), Act
of June 2, 1915, P.L. 736, as amended, 77 P.S. §§ 1-1041.4, 2501-2710, provides section numbers
that “are distinct from, but correspond to, the sections provided in Purdon’s Pennsylvania Statutes,
which is an unofficial codification of Pennsylvania law.” Herold, 329 A.3d at 1166 n.1. “For clarity,
we will refer to provisions of the [WC Act] only by their Purdon’s citation.” Id.

16
interpretation was grammatically and logically sound because replacing “it” with
“the act” resulted “in a stilted and unnatural sentence.” Id. The employee countered
that “it” referred to “this act” (the immediately preceding noun), meaning the
preceding noun defined the scope of The Pennsylvania Occupational Disease Act,23
see 77 P.S. § 1204. Id. at 1174. Per the employee, using the singular pronoun “it” for
the plural phrase “compensable disability or death” violated grammatical rules and
the employer’s interpretation was unnecessarily redundant. Id.24 Our Supreme
Court held that both parties presented reasonable grammatical arguments for their
interpretations, but each had drawbacks. Id. at 1178.25
The Herold parties also disputed the ambiguity of the phrase “for any
disability or death” in another statutory clause. 77 P.S. § 1403.26 The employer
argued that the clause barred all claims regardless of the four-year timeframe.
Herold, 329 A.3d at 1180 (arguing that “even if an injured employee’s disability or

23
Act of June 21, 1939, P.L. 566, as amended, 77 P.S. §§ 1201-1603.
24
Per the employer, “Wherever compensable disability or death is mentioned as a cause
for compensation under this act, compensable disability or death shall mean only compensable
disability or death resulting from occupational disease and occurring within four years after the
date of his last employment in such occupation or industry.” Herold, 329 A.3d at 1172. Per the
employee, “Wherever compensable disability or death is mentioned as a cause for compensation
under this act, this act shall mean only compensable disability or death resulting from occupational
disease and occurring within four years after the date of his last employment in such occupation
or industry.” Id. at 1174 (cleaned up and emphasis added).
25
Specifically, the employer’s interpretation contained “multiple unnecessary
redundancies, and [the employee’s] interpretation leads to somewhat stilted phrasing, as in ‘this
act shall mean,’ which could be accomplished more directly. In short, we find the statutory
language to be ambiguous.” Herold, 329 A.3d at 1178. Nevertheless, the Herold Court concluded
that regardless of which interpretation it adopted, the ultimate effect was the same: 77 P.S. § 1401(c)
temporally limited the term “compensable disability or death.” Id.
26
“Such agreement shall constitute an acceptance of all the provisions of article three of
this act, and shall operate as a surrender by the parties thereto of their rights to any form or amount
of compensation or damages for any disability or death resulting from occupational disease, or to
any method of determination thereof, other than as provided in article three of this act.” 77 P.S. §
1403 (emphasis added).

17
death occurs outside of [the] four-year limitations period, the injured employee could
not receive compensation”). The employee countered by focusing on the language
that surrendered his “rights to any form or amount of compensation.” Id. (cleaned
up). The surrender of his rights, the employee reasoned, was meaningful only if
compensation was actually available within the scope of the statute. Id. Because
his injury occurred outside of the four-year timeframe, the employee argued that 77
P.S. § 1403 permitted him to pursue a claim for damages outside the scope of the
statute. Id. Our Supreme Court agreed that both the employer’s and the employee’s
statutory interpretations were reasonable and thus invoked the rules of statutory
construction. Id.27
Instantly, like the McCoy and Herold Courts, we agree that the District
and Plaintiffs have each presented reasonable interpretations of the sexual abuse
exception. Cf. McCoy, 962 A.2d at 1163 (discussing the latent ambiguity of the
clause “from any location into an occupied structure”); Herold, 329 A.3d at 1178-80
(holding that the parties’ presented reasonable grammatical arguments construing
the term “it” and the latent ambiguity in the term “for any disability or death”).
The District construes the prefatory and sexual abuse clauses together
27
Specifically, the “broad interpretation advanced by the [employer], based upon the
statutory language applying the exclusivity provision to ‘any disability or death,’ is reasonable.”
Herold, 329 A.3d at 1180. The employee’s interpretation, “focusing on the provision’s language
regarding the forfeiting of the right to compensation outside of the workers’ compensation system,
and carving out an exception to exclusivity where there is no compensation available within the
system, is reasonable as well.” Id. Our Supreme Court did not elaborate.
The Court then examined the purpose underlying workers’ compensation, in which injured
employees received “certain, but reduced, benefits” in exchange for waiving their right to sue
“employers for job-related injuries.” Id. at 1182. This purpose, the Herold Court reasoned, would
be undermined if employees had no right to sue employers and seek compensation for injuries
occurring outside of the four-year window. Id. In other words, “claims by an injured worker
related to disability or death resulting from an occupational disease and which occur outside of the
four-year period are not barred by the exclusivity provision, and such an employee may seek
compensation against his employer in a common law civil action.” Id. at 1192 (footnote omitted).

18
as follows: the following acts by (1) a local agency or (2) any of its employees may
result in the imposition of liability on a local agency: (a) conduct, i.e., acts by a local
agency or its employees, which constitutes sexual abuse (b) if the injuries to the
plaintiff were caused by actions or omissions of the local agency which constitute
negligence. See 42 Pa.C.S. § 8542(b)(9). Per the District, the clause “following
acts” is a conditional clause that applies to the term “conduct.”
Plaintiffs, similar to the employee in Herold who also focused on a
conditional clause, disagree. In their view, the following acts by a (1) local agency
or (2) any of its employees may result in the imposition of liability on a local agency:
(a) conduct, i.e., acts by a third party (not acts by a local agency or its employees),
which constitutes sexual abuse (b) if the injuries to the plaintiff were caused by
actions or omissions of the local agency which constitute negligence. See 42 Pa.C.S.
§ 8542(b)(9). Anyone could commit the “conduct” of sexual abuse, per Plaintiffs,
but the local agency is liable only if its negligence caused Plaintiffs’ injuries. See
L.S. Hanover Area Sch. Dist. (M.D. Pa., No. 3:22-cv-234, filed May 23, 2024)
(Hanover), 2024 WL 2393038, at *13 (reasoning that the sexual abuse exception
“contemplates that ‘conduct’ constituting a sex offense against a minor can be
separate from the negligence of the local agency”).28
Both are reasonable, albeit imperfect interpretations. Cf. Herold, 329
28
Although neither party discussed Hanover, we may rely on persuasive federal district
court decisions. In re Gun Range, LLC, 311 A.3d 1242, 1248 n.8 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2024), cert. denied,
145 S. Ct. 1174 (2025). The Hanover Court emphasized the legislature’s use of the term
“omissions.” Hanover, 2024 WL 2393038, at *13. “A local agency employee cannot directly
engage in conduct constituting a sex offense against a minor through an omission.” Id. However,
“a local agency employee can cause injury to a minor plaintiff through an omission where it fails
to act in response to conduct constituting a sex offense.” Id. Thus, per Hanover, a plaintiff must
plead and prove and that the “the local agency’s alleged acts or omissions were the proximate
cause of the sexual assault.” Id. As the District points out, the only issue before this Court is
immunity and not “downstream issues when immunity does not apply, such as . . . causation.”
Dist.’s Br. at 17 n.3.

19
A.3d at 1178-80. The District’s interpretation is reasonable because governmental
immunity statutes are strictly construed to limit exceptions to immunity. Under its
strict construction, the District loses immunity only when a District employee
commits sexual abuse. But because a District—a local agency—cannot commit
sexual abuse, the District’s interpretation of “conduct” is flawed. Cf. McCoy, 962
A.2d at 1167 (emphasizing that the “plain meaning of the two phrases reveals a latent
ambiguity in the statute”); cf. also Hanover, 2024 WL 2393038, *13. The District’s
interpretation is also flawed because it does not acknowledge that a local agency’s
failure to act could have enabled sexual abuse. Cf., e.g., Crowell, 613 A.2d at 1183-
84 (holding that a municipality could be jointly liable when the municipality was
negligent in placing a traffic sign that misdirected a drunk driver into the plaintiff’s
vehicle); Jones, 700 A.2d at 419 (deciding that a jury must resolve whether the
municipality negligently maintained the police car and whether the municipality
could be jointly liable with the fleeing driver for the plaintiff’s injuries).
In turn, Plaintiffs’ interpretation is reasonable because it creates a direct
causal connection between the District’s alleged negligence and Plaintiffs’ injuries,
regardless of who committed the sexual abuse. Cf. also Hanover, 2024 WL
2393038, *13. Plaintiffs’ interpretation reflects the principle that a municipality may
be liable for negligence that enabled harm by third parties. Cf., e.g., Crowell, 613
A.2d at 1183-84; Jones, 700 A.2d at 419; cf. also Hanover, 2024 WL 2393038, *13.
Such an interpretation is also reasonable given that the District is acting in loco
parentis when the victim was assaulted. Plaintiffs’ interpretation is also flawed,
however, by not sufficiently acknowledging the plain language of the prefatory
clause, i.e., “the following acts by a local agency or any of its employees.” 42
Pa.C.S. § 8542(b) (emphasis added); cf. McCoy, 962 A.2d at 1167.

20
C. Legislative Intent of the Sexual Abuse Exception
Because both interpretations are reasonable, albeit somewhat flawed,
we invoke the rules of statutory construction, which include a consideration of the
“consequences of a particular interpretation,” and legislative history. See 1 Pa.C.S.
§ 1921(c); Herold, 329 A.3d at 1180.29
As for the former, the District begins with the premise that the
fundamental purpose of the Act is to shield the public fisc. Dist.’s Br. at 30. The
District reminds us of its budgetary constraints, self-insured status, and inability to
raise its own taxes in financing the education of 200,000 students. Id. at 30-31. The
District complains that the legislature removed the $500,000 statutory cap for sexual
abuse claims and extended the statute of limitations for almost 40 years after the
victim turns 18 years old. Id. at 31. Preventing “unusually large recoveries in tort
cases,” the District maintains, was an important public interest of the Act. Id. at 34.
Plaintiffs counter that the legislature weighed all of these public policy
considerations prior to enacting the sexual abuse exception. Pls.’ Br. at 37. The
District’s financial arguments, Plaintiffs emphasize, are “properly directed to the
legislature” and not this Court. Id. Plaintiffs also note there is no guarantee that
they will succeed on their case: they must plead and prove negligence. Id. at 38.
As for legislative history, District recaps the history behind the Act as a
whole, which in the District’s view, immunized agencies from tort damages unless
an agency employee was negligent. Dist.’s Br. at 10, 22-23. The District maintains
that nothing in the history suggested that the legislature intended to waive the
District’s “immunity for the acts of third parties.” Id. at 22-25 (analogizing to Burns

29
Section 1921(c)(6) provides that “when the words of the statute are not explicit, the
intention of the General Assembly may be ascertained by considering,” inter alia, the
“consequences of a particular interpretation.” 1 Pa.C.S. § 1921(c)(6).

21
v. Blair Cnty., 112 A.3d 690 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015), and City of Phila. v. Buck, 587 A.2d
875 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1991)). The District also relies on statements by Representative
Mark Rozzi, the lead legislative sponsor of the sexual abuse exception, who
identified several sexual abuse scandals that prompted the legislation. Id. at 26. The
District construes those scandals as having two elements in common: (1) the agency
employee—and not a third party—committed the sexual abuse; and (2) the agency
concealed the sexual abuse. Id. at 26-27.
Plaintiffs reject the District’s interpretation of Representative Rozzi’s
statements. Pls.’ Br. at 35-36. In Plaintiffs’ view, Representative Rozzi
“unambiguously explained” that the sexual abuse exception was intended to provide
“for absolute parity in the handling of sexual abuse claims between public and
private institutions.” Id. at 36 (quoting H. Journal, 4/10/19, at 510); accord Amicus
Br. of Rep. Mark Rozzi, at 3-4, 8 (citation omitted).30
Representative Rozzi similarly argues that the sexual abuse exception
was intended to (1) hold public institutions accountable for enabling “abusers to
commit their crimes against” children, and (2) expand a plaintiff’s “right to sue” to
include such public institutions. Amicus Br. of Rep. Mark Rozzi, at 8-9 (cleaned
up). To achieve this goal, Representative Rozzi explains the deliberate use of the
language “actions or omissions” in the sexual abuse exception to ensure that public
institutions could be held negligent for facilitating sexual abuse. Id. at 9-10 (rejecting
the District’s focus “on the employment status of the abuser, when instead this
amicus curiae intended the focus to be on the” agency’s actions or omissions).
Representative Rozzi reiterates that the goal of the sexual abuse exception “was not

30
“It will also waive sovereign immunity for public entities guilty of covering up childhood
sexual abuse. [House Bill] 962 provides for absolute parity in the handling of sexual abuse claims
between public and private institutions.” H. Journal, 4/10/19, at 510.

22
to hold institutions accountable for employing abusers, but for enabling abusers to
commit their crimes against innocent children.” Id. at 10 (cleaned up).
In ascertaining legislative intent, we presume the legislature did not
intend an absurd result and intended to favor protecting the public fisc. 1 Pa.C.S. §
1922(1), (5); Lehigh Valley Co-op. Farmers v. Bureau of Emp. Sec., Dep’t of Lab. &
Indus., 447 A.2d 948, 950 (Pa. 1982) (Lehigh). We also consider “the practical
results of a particular interpretation.” Lehigh, 447 A.2d at 950. In considering the
practical results, we recognize that the legislature decides public policy. Weaver v.
Harpster, 975 A.2d 555, 563 (Pa. 2009).
Instantly, even accepting as true the District’s assertions regarding the
consequences of Plaintiffs’ interpretation, the legislature decides public policy. See
id. We must presume the legislature also recognized its duty of protecting the public
fisc, including the potential monetary harm to municipalities from large tort
recoveries. See id.; 1 Pa.C.S. § 1921(c)(6) (noting we may consider the consequences
of a particular statutory interpretation in divining the legislature’s intent). Upon
balancing those duties, the legislature nevertheless enacted an exception to
governmental immunity, removed the damages cap, and extended the statute of
limitations. We cannot reweigh those considerations. See Weaver, 975 A.2d at 563;
see generally Zauflik, 104 A.3d at 1120-21.
As for the parties’ competing interpretations of legislative history, we
favor Plaintiffs’ interpretation, which relies on the floor statements of Representative
Rozzi, the main legislative sponsor. See, e.g., H. Journal, 4/10/19, at 510. As the lead
sponsor, he asserted that the intent of the legislation was to hold municipalities—
like the District—accountable for negligently enabling sexual abuse. Amicus Br. of
Rep. Mark Rozzi, at 9-10. The ability to hold the District liable, of course, does not

23
mean that Plaintiffs presumptively prevail or that the District cannot successfully
interpose some downstream defense. See Dist.’s Br. at 17 n.3. Further, we reject the
District’s reliance on Burns and Buck, as neither case addressed the sexual abuse
exception. See Burns, 112 A.3d at 700 (construing the real property immunity
exception); Buck, 587 A.2d at 878-89 (same).31 For these reasons, even after
considering the consequences of the parties’ competing interpretations, we
respectfully reject the District’s concerns about the consequences of Plaintiffs’
statutory interpretation. See 1 Pa.C.S. § 1921(c)(6).
IV. CONCLUSION
For these reasons we affirm the trial court’s order overruling the
preliminary objections filed by the District. We dismiss the District’s February 27,
2024 request to take judicial notice of related appeal as moot. We remand for further
proceedings.

LORI A. DUMAS, Judge

Judge Fizzano Cannon did not participate in this decision.

31
Also, our Supreme Court refined Buck’s broad analysis. See Crowell, 613 A.2d at 1183-
84; Jones, 700 A.2d at 419-20.

24
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

L.F.V., a minor, by her legal guardians :
Kimberly Varano and Joseph Varano, :
and Kimberly Varano and Joseph :
Varano in their own right :
: No. 218 C.D. 2023
v. :
:
South Philadelphia High School :
and Philadelphia School District, :
Appellants :

ORDER

AND NOW, this 9th day of June, 2025, we AFFIRM the order entered
by the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, which overruled the
preliminary objections filed by the Philadelphia School District (District). We
DISMISS the District’s February 27, 2024 request to take judicial notice of related
appeal as moot. We REMAND the case for further proceedings.
Jurisdiction relinquished.

LORI A. DUMAS, Judge

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11067614. Public record. Not legal advice.