stating “the information before us suggests that making governments liable for their torts will not substantially raise the costs of government or upset governmental financial stability”
How later courts described this case
- stating “the information before us suggests that making governments liable for their torts will not substantially raise the costs of government or upset governmental financial stability”
- holding that the doctrine of sovereign immunity in the Commonwealth resulted from a mistaken view of the law by earlier courts
- abolishing sovereign immunity in a case that began with a complaint in trespass filed in Commonwealth Court’s original jurisdiction
- overruling long-standing precedent establishing judicial sovereign immunity rule justified in part upon constitutional grounds, as inconsistent with plain language of Constitution
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
LARSEN, Justice,
concurring.
I join in Mr. Justice Roberts’ opinion and wish to add that I can think of no greater function or more honorable pursuit than for the sovereign (Commonwealth of Pennsylvania) to care for those whom it has injured or maimed. Over thirty other sovereigns share this philosophy.