Case law

Lacava v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority

157 A.3d 1003 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 29, 2017

The City’s Argument that Lacava failed to establish an exception to governmental immunity under the “streets” exception 8 Although SEPTA asserted in its 1925(b) statement that the trial … ” exception to sovereign immunity.

Mistecka v. Commonwealth

46 Pa. Commw. 267 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 1, 1979

C.S. §5110, as to which the legislature has granted a limited waiver of sovereign immunity. We conclude that subsection (a)(5) of 42 Pa. … The situations described in these complaints are clearly not created by natural elements.

Trenco, Inc. v. Dept. of Transp.

126 Pa. Commw. 501 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 14, 1989

However, we believe that appellant has established issues of material fact concerning DOT’s alleged negligent mainte *506 nance of the property adjacent to Route 11 and, therefore, has established a claim within Section 8255 … Clearly, in that scenario, as well as in the facts presently before the Court, the dangerous condition was of the land itself.

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. .

In re Appeal of Gomez

688 A.2d 1261 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 11, 1997

, or ruling and such decision impacts on a person’s personal or property rights, privileges, immunities, duties, liabilities, or obligations.” … As such, the letters clearly constituted an “adjudication” under 2 Pa.C.S. § 101, from which Gomez has a statutory right of appeal pursuant to 2 Pa.C.S. § 752.

SEPTA v. City of Philadelphia and Philadelphia Commission on Human Relations

122 A.3d 1163 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 7, 2015

The Metropolitan Transportation Authorities Act also established that SEPTA enjoys sovereign immunity. … and official immunity and remain immune from suit except as the General Assembly shall specifically waive the immunity.

Musheno v. Lock Haven University

132 Pa. Commw. 643 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · May 11, 1990

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. Gump v. … ; and (2) the cause of action must fall within one of the eight exceptions to governmental immunity.

Hill v. PORT AUTH. T. SYS., ALLEG. CTY.

125 Pa. Commw. 69 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 11, 1989

Further, it was intended to re-establish limited governmental immunity abrogated by Ayala v. … This Court finds that the Authority consistently maintained that it was not the primary obligor even subsequent to disclosure of information which clearly established Appellant's uninsured status and subsequent to this Court's

Banfield v. Aichele

51 A.3d 300 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 29, 2012

Thus, if a DRE can provide the requisite permanent physical records when specifically requested, it qualifies as an EVS as defined by the Election Code. … Brau enclosed a check in the requisite statutory amount of $450, and provided the statutorily-required signatures of ten qualified electors.

Natt v. Labar

117 Pa. Commw. 207 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 22, 1988

We disagree as Labars actions were clearly outside the scope of his employment. … Consequently, the trial court committed no error in finding that Appellants foiled to show that any genuine issues of material fact exist to establish that Appellants’ injuries were caused by the negligence of the local agency

V. Balentine, Individually and as Administratrix v. Chester Water Authority

140 A.3d 69 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 3, 2016

This Court held that the allegations were sufficient to establish that the truck was in “operation” at the time of injury under the motor vehicle exception to governmental immunity because it was essentially alleged that … Unlike the majority, the statute does not qualify the word “operation.” If the movement of the vehicle causes the injury, the vehicle is deemed to be in operation.

Cuvo v. City of Easton

678 A.2d 424 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 24, 1996

Section 2 provides that “the citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.” … “Durational” residency requirements “penalize those persons who have traveled from one place to another to establish a new residence during the qualifying period.” Dunn v.

Nardo v. City of Philadelphia

988 A.2d 740 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 8, 2010

Although Section 8542 states that there is an exception to immunity for negligence with regard to the care, custody or control of real property in the *746 possession of the local agency, it clearly states that liability … Here, although the contractor was never identified, City and Commission employees established that an unknown independent contractor did construct the alleged defective garden.

McKinney v. City of Philadelphia

123 Pa. Commw. 144 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 26, 1989

Questions presented are essentially whether governmental immunity under the Judicial Code, 42 Pa. C. … The instant record clearly demonstrates that the order from which the City appealed is interlocutory in nature and that the City has failed to otherwise establish its appealability.

Township of Bensalem v. Press

93 Pa. Commw. 235 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 27, 1985

It is to be noted that in Pennsylvania, this “waiver” of immunity arose not. from a statute enacted by the legislature, but from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s eradication of a doctrine which it had previously established … S. §704(a). ’ - ■ Appellants do not clearly explain whether they believe Horowitz is entitled to absolute immunity (reserved for high public officials) or a limited immunity which is available to other officials.

Thomas v. City of Philadelphia

668 A.2d 292 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 13, 1995

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. … However, Administratrix has failed to establish that any negligence on the part of the City, if proven, falls within one of the exceptions to governmental immunity listed in section 8542(b) and, thus, cannot satisfy the second

Kapil v. Association of Pennsylvania State College

68 Pa. Commw. 287 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 10, 1982

In any event, that dimension of state sovereign immunity clearly preexisted Section 1983 of the federal Civil Rights Act. … City of Independence, 445 U.S. 622 (1980), the United States Supreme Court stated that: Where the immunity claimed by the defendant was well established at common law at the time §1983 was encated, and where its rationale

Donnelly v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority

708 A.2d 145 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 12, 1998

See Ortiz (holding that routine construction work on a scaffold clearly involves no special danger or peculiar risk); Edwards v. … Exception to Sovereign Immunity Requirement Even if the Donnellys could maintain a cause of action against SEPTA at common law, they would still not prevail because they have failed to establish that any negligence on the

Orange Stones Co. v. City of Reading

87 A.3d 1014 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 21, 2014

First, a party may raise the affirmative defense of immunity as a preliminary objection where it is clearly applicable on the face of the complaint; that is, that a cause of action is made against a governmental body and … In and of themselves, these averments are markedly insufficient to establish that Lachat possessed the wrongful intent necessary to overcome the official/governmental immunity conferred to him by the Tort Claims Act.

Smolsky v. Pennsylvania General Assembly

34 A.3d 316 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 2, 2011

Immunity Additionally, the General Assembly objects on the ground that Smolsky’s claims against the General Assembly are barred by legislative immunity. 7 We agree. … The affirmative defense, however, must be clearly applicable on the face of the complaint. Id. at 975-976 .