# Smith v. City of Philadelphia

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · October 3, 1986 · 512 Pa. 129

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9544338

## Case

- **Full name:** Ruth v. SMITH, Administratrix of the Estate of Harry F. Smith, Deceased and Rita Ladzensky, Administratrix of the Estate of Gerald Ladzensky, Deceased and Charles Alexander Scott, Appellees, v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA and Philadelphia Gas Works and Philadelphia Facilities Management Corporation, Appellants
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** October 3, 1986
- **Citations:** 512 Pa. 129; 516 A.2d 306; 1986 Pa. LEXIS 874
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Zappala
- **Judges:** Nix, Larsen, Flaherty, McDermott, Hutchinson, Zappala, Papadakos
- **Cited by:** 45 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/9544338

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- explaining “[b]ecause the right implicated . . . —access to the courts—is specifically limited by Art. I, § 11 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, we concluded that it is not a fundamental right”
- Noting that the “important interest in access to the courts . . . should be examined pursuant to an intermediate standard of review.”

## Opinion text

ZAPPALA, Justice,
concurring.
While I join in Part I of the majority opinion regarding the constitutional authority to limit tort recovery against the Commonwealth and concur with the result, I once again disagree with the majority’s determination that an intermediate or “heightened scrutiny” standard of review is appropriate. See James v. SEPTA, 505 Pa. 137, 149 , 477 A.2d 1302, 1308 (1984) (Concurring Opinion of Zappala, J.) As in James , I would hold that the proper standard of review is the rational basis test. Under the present facts, this test was met.
HUTCHINSON, J., joins in this concurring opinion.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9544338. Public record. Not legal advice.