# Dean v. Com., Dept. of Transp.

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 18, 2000 · 561 Pa. 503

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9735152

## Case

- **Full name:** Stacey L. DEAN v. COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; And Ronald Eugene Bell. Appeal of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** May 18, 2000
- **Citations:** 561 Pa. 503; 751 A.2d 1130; 2000 Pa. LEXIS 1241
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Nigro
- **Judges:** Flaherty, Zappala, Cappy, Cast, Lle, Nigro, Newman, Saylor
- **Cited by:** 130 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/9735152

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that DOT has no duty to install guardrails because absence of guardrails does not render highway unsafe for its intended use
- rejecting PennDOT’s contention “that the real estate exception does not apply merely because Appellee asserted that a concurrent cause of her injuries was the accumulation of snow on the highway”
- observing that “the lack of a guardrail does not render the highway unsafe for the purposes for [J-66-2017] - 3 which it was intended, i.e., travel on the roadway”
- observing that "the lack of a guardrail does not render the highway unsafe for the purposes for which it was intended, i.e., travel on the roadway"
- noting that the clear intent of the Tort Claims Act was to insulate the government from exposure to tort liability

## Opinion text

NIGRO, Justice,
dissenting.
Since I believe the real estate exception to sovereign immunity clearly applies to the instant case, I must respectfully dissent. Unlike the majority, I see the guardrail as an obvious part of the highway and therefore, cannot agree with the majority’s conclusion that the real estate exception is not triggered by the absence of a guardrail on the shoulder of the road. If, as the majority contends, the absence of a guardrail does not affect the safety of the road for travel, I question why the Commonwealth would ever place a guardrail on a highway in the first place. For example, in the instant case, it seems clear that an appropriately placed guardrail at the scene of the accident would have stopped Mr. Bell’s truck from sliding over the embankment and therefore, would have prevented the serious injuries incurred by Ms. Dean.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9735152. Public record. Not legal advice.