holding that, where the reason for a rule of law has disappeared over time, stare decisis may be set aside
How later courts described this case
- holding that, where the reason for a rule of law has disappeared over time, stare decisis may be set aside
- abolishing governmental immunity for municipal and quasi-municipal corporations, paving the way for exceptions to Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act, 42 Pa.C.S. § 8541 et seq.
- abrogating governmental immunity notwithstanding suggestions in earlier decisions that legislature should take up issue
- reference to New Jersey “policy favoring liberal products liability recovery”.
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Overruled on other grounds by Mayle v. Pennsylvania Department of Highways, 479 Pa. 384 (1978)
305 A.2d 877 (Pa. 1973), and overruled on other grounds by Mayle v. Pa. Dep’t of Highways, 388 A.2d 709
Superseded by statute, as recognized in Michel v. City of Bethlehem
Bd. of Public Ed., 453 Pa. 584, 305 A.2d 877, 887-88 (1973), superseded by statute as recognized in Dorsey v. Redman, 626 Pa. 195, 96 A.3d 332 (2014) (“[I]f, after thorough examination and deep thought a prior judicial decision seems wrong in principle or manifestly out of accord' with modern conditions of life, it should not be followed as controlling precedent”).
Criticized by Smith v. Mognet, 152 Pa. Commw. 302 (1992)
Moreover, even the use of the function test has been criticized as "archaic and artificial,” Ayala v. Philadelphia Board of Public Education, 453 Pa. 584, 305 A.2d 877 (1973), and "obsolete,” Northampton.
Distinguished
Distinguished by Zdaniewicz v. Sands, 14 Pa. D. & C.3d 755 (1980)
In Wicks v. Milzoco Builders, Inc., 25 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 340, 346, 360 A. 2d 250 (1976), in a scholarly opinion by the late President Judge Bowman, the court held that governmental immunity (abolished by Ayala v. Philadelphia Board of Public Education, 453 Pa. 584, 305 A. 2d 877 (1973)), is distinguishable from absolute immunity of high public officials, saying: “We simply believe that the Supreme Court’s abolitio…
The opinion
Concurring Opinion by
Mr. Justice Manderino:
I join in the majority opinion by Mr. Justice Roberts. I should like to add that the doctrine of governmental immunity is unconstitutional as is the doctrine of sovereign immunity. No branch of government— the executive, the legislative, or the judicial branch— can deprive a citizen of proper redress for a wrong. The denial of justice in any case is not constitutionally permitted. See Brown v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 453 Pa. 566, 580 , 305 A. 2d 868, 875 (1973) (dissenting opinion by Mr. Justice Manderino).