dismissing the complaint with prejudice without addressing Philadelphia’s immunity
How later courts described this case
- dismissing the complaint with prejudice without addressing Philadelphia’s immunity
- because injuries were caused by the criminal acts of a third party, the City of Philadelphia was immune from all liability for the harm caused by the third party
- assailant's attack on City-owned parking lot did not give rise to liability where attack was facilitated by inadequate lighting and lack of adequate security
- discussing, inter alia, Mascaro II
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
*320 LARSEN, Justice
dissenting.
I dissent and would affirm on the basis of the opinion authored by Judge Theodore O. Rogers in this case and on the basis of my opinion in Mascaro v. Youth Study Center, 514 Pa. 351 , 523 A.2d 1118 (1987) (Larsen, J., dissenting).