Case law

Oliver v. Tropiano Transportation, Inc.

79 A.3d 1233 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 8, 2013

42 Pa.C.S. § 8522(b)(4), because there was no “dangerous condition of the property” established. … Based on the foregoing, the Authority is clearly a local agency in the context of this case.

Johnson v. Woodland Hills School District

135 Pa. Commw. 43 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 29, 1990

Miladin, 123 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 405, 553 A.2d 535 (1989), that the real property exception to immunity 1 did not apply. … Summary judgment is only appropriate when, after examining the record in favor of the nonmoving party, there is no genuine issue of material fact and the movant clearly establishes that he or she is entitled to judgment as

Banfield v. Cortes

922 A.2d 36 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 12, 2007

Brau enclosed a check for $450 and the signatures of ten qualified registered electors, as required by statute. … Sovereign Immunity In the second preliminary objection, the Secretary argues that Commonwealth officials are immune from claims seeking affirmative or mandatory injunctive relief. 5 We disagree.

R. Scott v. Philadelphia Police Officer B. Canela-Perez & G. Lutz

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 14, 2025

The interrogatory at issue was clearly not limited to any specific claims. … the established case law.

Wilson Et Vir v. Miladin

123 Pa. Commw. 405 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 10, 1989

. §8501, and was, therefore, entitled to governmental immunity. 1 The court also concluded that the real property exception to immunity 2 did not apply. Thus, it held that Rochester was not liable. … Summary judgment is appropriate only when, examining the record in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, there is no genuine issue of material fact and the movant clearly establishes that he or she is entitled

Cacchione v. Wieczorek

674 A.2d 773 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 11, 1996

Clearly, these cases do not fall within the Love definition of operation because the injuries were not allegedly caused by any movement of the entire vehicles or parts of the vehicles when or after the vehicles were parked … Love, 518 Pa. at 375 , 543 A.2d at 533 . 5 We conclude that the facts, as alleged and accepted as true, establish that the truck was in operation at the time of the injury under the vehicle exception to governmental immunity

Cowell v. Commonwealth, Department of Transportation

883 A.2d 705 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 29, 2005

any exception to sovereign immunity. … Preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer should be sustained only where the pleadings are clearly insufficient to establish a right to relief; any doubt must be resolved in favor of overruling the demurrer.

Rodriguez v. Commonwealth

59 A.3d 45 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 9, 2013

We affirm the trial court’s holding that an exception from sovereign immunity has not been established for such a claim. The accident occurred on U.S. … In order for a Commonwealth party to be held liable, the plaintiff must establish that the cause of action falls under one of the specifically enumerated exceptions to immunity. Fagan v.

Rhoads Et Ux. v. Lancaster Park. Auth.

103 Pa. Commw. 303 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 22, 1987

in this regard, however, is basically one alleging negligent supervision of persons on the property of the governmental body, and while this principle of law is germane to Section 344 of the Restatement and relevant in establishing … Appellants misapprehend the meaning of the above quoted language in Vann , language attributable to this exception to immunity, with the concept of establishing a common law cause of action.

Bickert v. Borough of Riverside

118 Pa. Commw. 91 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 21, 1988

Force, was killed. 1 Bickert filed a complaint against the Borough and Department, averring that the police negligently engaged in pursuit and that the Department negligently failed to train and instruct its officers and establish … Bickert contends that her complaint clearly alleges negligence with respect to the operation of the police vehicle.

M.C. Romig v. J. Wetzel

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 29, 2024

clearly established when it occurred. … Therefore, qualified immunity does not shield the Department from Romig’s claim.

Daubenspeck v. Commonwealth

894 A.2d 867 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 16, 2006

by sovereign immunity. … The Police moved for a new trial or a judgment n.o.v. and asserted its conduct did not qualify as an exception to the real estate exception to sovereign immunity.

Warrick v. Pro Cor Ambulance, Inc.

709 A.2d 422 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 20, 1998

Warrick cites no authority for its position because, in fact, there is none. 7 Indeed, Warrick’s argument is contrary to all established precedent confirming SEPTA’s entitlement to sovereign immunity. In Marshall v. … Under established law, therefore, Warrick is not entitled to recover from SEPTA because her claim does not fall within any of the exceptions to sovereign immunity.

Cornell Narberth, LLC v. Borough of Narberth

167 A.3d 228 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 14, 2017

The trial court reasoned that the letter “is barely a scintilla of evidence and would clearly not survive trial on the merits.” Id. … To establish a contract, all essential elements must exist, including consideration.

Leasoff v. Commonwealth, Department of Transportation

59 Pa. Commw. 45 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 28, 1981

S. §5110 (Act 152 of 1978), which re-established governmental immunity subject to several exceptions in which immunity was waived, such as personal injuries resulting from “[p]otholes and other dangerous conditions.” … Although the Legislature expressed its intent that the re-establishment of immunity should receive retroactive effect, Section 5(b) of the Act of September 28, 1978, P.L. 788 (Act 152), infra note 2, the Supreme Court held

Hall v. Southwestern Pennsylvania Water Authority

87 A.3d 998 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 17, 2014

Commonwealth agencies are generally immune from suit, except where immunity has expressly been waived. Pa. Const. … Assuming that the Halls could establish that damages for negligence would be recoverable at common law or under statute, they still have to prove that the real estate exception to sovereign immunity at 42 Pa.C.S. § 8522(b

L.F.V., a minor, by her legal guardians K. Varano & J. Varano v. S. Philadelphia H.S. & Philadelphia S.D.

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 9, 2025

traffic signs, lights or other traffic controls, street lights or street lighting systems under the care, custody or control of the local agency, except that the claimant to recover must establish … Accordingly, per Crowell, we examine whether Plaintiffs have alleged “specific facts” that would establish the District’s joint negligence despite the presence of additional tortfeasors, i.e., the two minors.

Burkey v. Borough of Auburn

100 Pa. Commw. 110 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 25, 1986

The Court in Davies rejected this argument, stating: Clearly, in order for this section to be applicable to the case before us, there must be an allegation that the vehicle was operated by a school official. … While such allegations, if proven, may certainly establish unreasonable conduct on the part of a police officer toward a driver in Appellant’s condition, they nonetheless do not fall within the narrow exception to the general

M.A. Robinson v. Officer Fye

192 A.3d 1225 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 17, 2018

The New Matter asserted the defenses of lack of administrative exhaustion, failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and qualified immunity. (Defendants’ Answer to Am. Compl. ¶¶ 47-51.) … was prejudiced by common pleas’ decision to treat the Motion and the defenses raised therein as an amendment to Defendants’ New Matter, it is first worth noting that “[t]he decision to allow an amendment to a pleading is clearly

Patterson v. Lycoming County

815 A.2d 659 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 31, 2002

The Robinsons filed an answer and new matter alleging that at all relevant times they were employees of CYS and therefore immune because the complaint’s allegations do not fall within any of the exceptions to immunity as … R.A.P. 341(c) establishes the exclusive method by which to appeal an order that dismisses fewer than all of the defendants. . 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 8501-8564. .