dissenting opinion of Roberts, J., joined by Nix & Manderino, JJ.
How later courts described this case
- dissenting opinion of Roberts, J., joined by Nix & Manderino, JJ.
- dissenting opinion of Roberts, J., joined by Nix and Manderino, JJ.
- “[I]t falls to the Legislature to determine the circumstances under which immunity may be waived. . . . We reiterate our urging of the need for comprehensive legislative action permissible under Article I, Section 11.”
- dissenting opinion by Mr. Justice Manderino
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Dissenting Opinion by
Mr. Justice Nix:
I am still of the opinion expressed in my dissent in Biello v. Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board, 454 Pa. 179 , 301 A. 2d 849 (1973).
The result reached by the majority in this case is particularly inexplicable in view of the statutory requirement that the State carry insurance coverage, 1 and the fact that the State maintained insurance covering this claim.
Mr. Justice Egberts and Mr. Justice Manderino join in this dissenting opinion.
“The Department of Property and Supplies shall have the power, and its duty shall be:
(b) To procure automobile liability insurance, covering vehicles owned by the Commonwealth. . . .
“All automobile liability insurance procured by the Department of Property and Supplies hereunder shall protect both the Commonwealth and the State officer or employe operating the vehicle, or State officers and employes and officers and enlisted men of the Pennsylvania National Guard . . . against claims for damages for injury to person or property. . . .” Administrative Code of 1929, Act of April 9, 1929, P. L. 177, §2404, as amended, 71 P.S. 634.