plurality — “we agree with the ultimate outcome in White”
How later courts described this case
- plurality — “we agree with the ultimate outcome in White”
Written by the judges who cited it.
Distinguished
Distinguished by Walker v. Eleby, 577 Pa. 104 (2004)
Sherman is distinguishable from the case sub judice in that the City of Philadelphia owned the abutting property in Sherman, although not the street.
The opinion
LEADBETTER, Judge,
dissenting.
I must respectfully dissent. Although I do not disagree with the majority’s thorough and well-stated analysis, I simply do not believe that it is our function to rewrite a statute which is clear on its face because we believe the legislature has made a mistake. It is the General Assembly’s prerogative to write our statutory laws, and if one is inartfully drafted, it is the General Assembly’s prerogative to amend it or leave it alone.
I would affirm the Court of Common Pleas in this case, overrule White v. City of Philadelphia, 712 A.2d 345 (Pa.Cmwlth.1998) and leave it to the legislature to “fill in” “gaps” in the laws setting forth the exceptions to local government immunity.
Judge KELLEY joins in this dissenting opinion.