# Gallagher v. COM. OF PA., BUR. OF CORR.

> Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · August 12, 1988 · 118 Pa. Commw. 516

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9647390

## Case

- **Full name:** Jay Gallagher, Appellant v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Bureau of Correction Et Al., Appellees
- **Court:** Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** August 12, 1988
- **Citations:** 118 Pa. Commw. 516; 545 A.2d 981; 1988 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 651
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Doyle
- **Judges:** Crumlish, Craig, MacPhail, Doyle, Barry, McGinley, Smith
- **Cited by:** 24 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/9647390

## Opinion text

*523 Dissenting Opinion by
Judge Doyle:
I respectfully dissent. The majority concedes, and I would certainly agree, that the cell door, is real property. Therefore, the question we must decide is whether the door constituted a dangerous condition within the intendment of Section 8522(b)(4) of the Judicial Code, 42 Pa. C. S. §8522(b)(4). While the door, in and of itself, may not have been defective, its placement next to the bunk in light of the custom to utilize the door to gain access to the .top bunk and in light of the total absence of any other means of access to that bunk indicates to me a design defect in the real property which a jury could reasonably view as a dangerous condition.
While Mascaro v. Youth Study Center, 514 Pa. 351 , 523 A.2d 1118 (1987), and its progeny construed the real property exception narrowly, they did not eradicate the principle entirely. Moreover, those cases involved intervening criminal action by a third party which could logically be viewed as the proximate cause of the injury. Here, in contrast, the cell door was being used for the very purpose for which it was intended and the action of Mr. Gallaghers cell mate in .closing the door was certainly not criminal. Thus, on the peculiar facts before us, I believe that Mr. Gallagher has pled sufficient facts to resist dismissal of his case by way of a motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, I would reverse the trial courts order and direct that the case continue.
Judge McGinley joins.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9647390. Public record. Not legal advice.