Case law

Sweeney v. Merrymead Farm, Inc.

799 A.2d 972 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 7, 2002

The affirmative defense, however, must be clearly applica *976 ble on the face of the complaint. … Preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer should be sustained only where the pleading is clearly insufficient to establish a right to relief.

Maloney v. City of Philadelphia

111 Pa. Commw. 634 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 15, 1987

In his appeal, Maloney contends the facts of the case establish a cause of action which falls within the real property exception to immunity provided for in 42 Pa. C. S. §8542(b)(3). … He then contends this makes the scaffolding a fixture and qualifies it as real property in the possession of the City.

City of Philadelphia v. Patton

148 Pa. Commw. 141 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · May 19, 1992

The City disingenuously argues that the enactment of the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act, Act of November 26, 1978, P.L. 1399, formerly 53 P.S. §§ 5311.101-5311.803, establishing the statutory bar of governmental immunity … Id., 525 Pa. at 9 , 574 A.2d at 1044 . 4 An entire reading of the McHugh decision, however, clearly demonstrates that it does not support the City’s contention.

J. Brown v. Philadelphia Board of Ethics, & J.S. Creamer, Jr.

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 25, 2026

Second, Plaintiffs contend the Executive Director was not a high public official under our well-established case law, and, therefore, Creamer was not entitled to absolute immunity. … Furthermore, Section 8550 of the Act explicitly limits its application to Sections 8545, 8546, 8548, and 8549 of the Act, which establish official immunity protections for local agency employees and do not pertain to immunity

Rothermel v. Commonwealth, Department of Transportation

672 A.2d 837 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 6, 1996

Initially, we note that summary judgment is only appropriate when, after examining the record, there is no genuine issue of material fact and the movant clearly establishes its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. … Because Administrators have failed to establish a causal connection between the decedents’ accident and the condition of the property within DOT’s control, the real estate exception to state sovereign immunity, 42 Pa.C.S.

Gibellino v. Manchester Township

109 A.3d 336 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 23, 2015

The trial court first determined that the Township is immune because Gibellino’s allegations in Count I clearly sound in tort as they are based on the contractor’s negligence in failing to properly install the backwater valves … To fall within the exception to immunity, Section 8542(b)(5) 13 provides that Gibellino was required to allege facts that established: 1. the dangerous condition created a reasonably foreseeable risk of the kind of injury

Burgan v. City of Pittsburgh

115 Pa. Commw. 566 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · May 3, 1988

. §8522, to waive the Commonwealths immunity only in “specific, clearly-stated situations” and that therefore the enumerated exceptions to immunity must *579 be strictly construed. Davidow v. Anderson, 83 Pa. … It further states that the city is responsible for establishing a *582 detour in accordance with Section 548 of the Law, 36 PS. §670-548.

DuBree v. Commonwealth

8 Pa. Commw. 567 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 9, 1973

The Supreme Court, however, has yet to define clearly who is a “high public official.” In Montgomery v. … Clearly, they do not point to such intentionally malicious, wanton or reckless conduct as would overcome a presumption of conditional immunity, and, in no way could they overcome any presumption of absolute immunity.

League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania v. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 9, 2018

Under federal common law, state legislative privilege and state legislative immunity is “qualified based on the nature of the claim at issue.” … Id. at 334. 5  Legislative Respondents clearly are not invoking qualified legislative privilege and immunity under federal common law; rather, they are invoking

Roth v. Borough of Verona

74 Pa. Commw. 352 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · May 17, 1983

Although the trial court’s order clearly dismissed the Local' Agency Law appeal, there is no discussion of that issue in the trial court’s opinion. … S. §101 is as follows: , , Any final order, decree, decision, determination or ruling by an agency affecting personal or property rights, privileges, immunities, duties, liabilities or obligations of any or all of the parties

City of Philadelphia v. Melendez

156 Pa. Commw. 271 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 15, 1993

The City argues that case law has clearly established that a parked vehicle is not in operation, and that claims involving a parked vehicle are not actionable under the vehicle exception to governmental immunity. … As previously established, the facts of this case do not fall within any *277 of the potentially applicable exceptions to governmental immunity, and therefore, Crowell does not apply.

Community College v. Aliquippa School District

4 Pa. Commw. 483 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 22, 1972

of those actually voting, unless a contrary legislative intention is very clearly expressed.” … Since we have determined that the Board was properly established, there is no need to address ourselves to the question of whether the college was immune from challenge as a de facto college.

Herman v. Greene County Fair Board

112 Pa. Commw. 615 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 21, 1988

Summary judgment is properly granted where there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party has clearly established entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. Kuehner v. Parsons, 107 Pa. … We believe the Legislature has clearly precluded the imposition of liability on itself or its local agencies for acts of third parties by its language of §8541, supra, and that it has not seen fit to waive immunity for these

Smith v. PORTER TP., CLINTON COUNTY

141 Pa. Commw. 244 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 12, 1991

Definitions The following words and phrases when used in this chapter shall have, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise, the meanings given to them in this section: * * * * * * "Employee.” … damages suffered as a result of Fairview Township’s alleged negligence in failing to hire a competent sewage enforcement officer, failing to ascertain that the individual serving in that capacity was properly trained and qualified

Shedrick v. William Penn School District

654 A.2d 163 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 17, 1995

real property exception to local agency immunity. … For cases which have clearly defined this principle, see Fitchett v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transp.

Sherman v. City of Philadelphia

745 A.2d 95 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 31, 2000

Although we acknowledge that this analysis clearly sets up an “exception” to an exception in governmental immunity, thereby obliterating a distinction between sidewalks owned by a local government and those owned by private … citizens, such an analysis is clearly reasonable and reaches a sensible result.

Davis v. School District

91 Pa. Commw. 27 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 9, 1985

to enter into the swimming pool area and use the swimming pool without proper and adequate supervision; (6) Failing to make said swimming pool safe for plaintiffs’ decedent’s use; (7) Failing to have lifeguards or other qualified … , writing that: The averments in the appellant’s complaint clearly indicate that the gravamen of his action was the alleged negligence of district employees within respect to an activity on district premises. . . .

Kuzel v. Krause

658 A.2d 856 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · May 8, 1995

A claim for wrongful discharge is made out when the plaintiff establishes that his or her discharge is a violation of a clearly definable right that “strikes at the heart of citizens’ social right, duties and responsibilities … Because of our Supreme Court’s interpretation of 42 Pa.C.S. § 8550, willful misconduct requires Employees here to establish more than wrongful discharge to make the defense of official immunity unavailable to Krause.

Flood v. Silfies

933 A.2d 1072 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 2, 2007

The Supreme Court then noted that the criteria for establishing local agency immunity changed as a result of its decision in Sphere Drake, which broadened the factors that must be analyzed in determining whether an entity … Appellees assert that the test for determining whether a volunteer fire company is entitled to immunity under the PSTCA was established in Guinn , and it was not modified or overruled by either Sphere Drake or Christy .

Allen v. County of Wayne

88 A.3d 1035 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 13, 2013

Plaintiff also argues that the trial court erred by failing to address his claim that improper maintenance of the lawn tractor’s reverse warning mechanism qualified as an exception to governmental immunity. … The immunity defense, however, must be clearly applicable on the face of the complaint. Id.