Case law

Weiser v. H.H. Robertson Co.

20 Pa. D. & C.3d 755 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Sep 30, 1981

It is clearly established in Pennsylvania that both the immediate (actual) employer and general contractor (statutory employer) are immunized from common-law liability. … The question whether a subcontractor also qualifies for a statutory employer defense has not yet been clearly determined. *757 In Rieffer v. Walsh Construction Co., 140 F. Supp.

Costopoulos v. Gibboney

1 Pa. D. & C.4th 303 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Perry County · Dec 2, 1988

These are: (78) Defendants violated no clearly established constitutional right of plaintiff and are therefore immune from money damages under 42 U.S.C. §1983 . • (80) Plaintiff alleges that he was arrested on June 11, 1977 … It is our opinion, therefore, that both the state and federal actions are governed by qualified immunity.

Ginsburg v. Kovrak

11 Pa. D. & C.2d 615 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Jan 14, 1957

Admittedly there is none in the matter of qualifying Federal attorneys by any exclusively Federal system of education or supervision. … Merely because the Federal courtrooms are open does not mean that the Federal courts have approved anyone as a qualified lawyer. The most it means is that a man may practice there if he is qualified by local law.

Greene v. Street

24 Pa. D. & C.5th 546 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Aug 5, 2011

As Chairman of the PHA, Street is clearly protected by high public official immunity. … Accordingly, because Street both qualifies as a high official and was acting within the scope of his duties, he qualifies for high public official immunity.

Haefner v. Steward

19 Pa. D. & C.4th 152 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Lancaster County · Feb 17, 1993

and qualified immunity; and (3) the failure to state a cause of action for defamation against Dr. … Thus, no apology will be forthcoming.” 3 *158 Plaintiff’s third amended complaint establishes that Dr.

Sylvan Heights Realty Partners L.L.C. v. Lagrotta

6 Pa. D. & C.5th 344 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Lawrence County · Feb 16, 2007

[AJbsent statutory classification, the parameters establishing ‘high public official’ status would be delineated *349 by the judiciary on a case-by-case basis, rather than establishing a bright-line ‘of demarcation, if any … While the above holding does suggest that defendant’s actions in placing telephone calls and issuing media releases qualifies for immunity, the court notes that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court overruled the Commonwealth Court

Wesleyville Borough v. Erie County Board of Assessment Appeals

29 Pa. D. & C.4th 242 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Erie County · Aug 18, 1995

owned by a municipality and devoted exclusively to public purposes is immune from any form of taxation or assessments unless a statute clearly and unequivocally expresses the legislative will that such property shall not … be immune: . . .

Solyan v. Fontana

49 Pa. D. & C.3d 84 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Erie County · Aug 11, 1988

The latter do not qualify as exceptions to governmental immunity. See Shakoor v. Department of Transportation, supra. … Consequently, this court is limited to applying the governmental immunity statute and its exceptions in accordance with established precedent and the intent of the legislature.

Ortiz v. Allentown Housing Authority

42 Pa. D. & C.4th 1 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Lehigh County · Feb 17, 1999

The immunity of a housing authority from suit is governed by the sovereign immunity doctrine for Commonwealth agencies set forth in 42 Pa.C.S. §8521 et seq., and not by the governmental immunity rule for local agencies contained … According to plaintiff’s expert, it is well-known to playground design professionals that there are softer materials available that are clearly more appropriate for this use.

Venosh v. Henzes

31 Pa. D. & C.5th 411 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Lackawanna County · Jul 17, 2013

The PRPA grants qualified immunity for health care providers participating *424 in a peer review process and establishes an evidentiary privilege applicable to peer review proceedings. See 63 P.S. §§ 425.3 — 425.4. … June 28, 2010), visiting Senior Judge John Leete found that since section 311 clearly states that documents “must be solely prepared for compliance with the Patient Safety Act” to be considered confidential, Moses Taylor’

Fowler v. Gettysburg School District

13 Pa. D. & C.4th 266 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Adams County · Nov 15, 1991

Summary judgment will be entered only if defendants clearly *267 are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Carns v. Yingling, 406 Pa. Super. 279 , 594 A.2d 337 (1991). … Plaintiff seeks to qualify his action under the real estate exception to immunity, as described in the Po *268 litical Subdivision Tort Immunity Act, 42 Pa.C.S. §8541(b)(3).

Schrank v. Borough of Moosic

45 Pa. D. & C.4th 338 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Lackawanna County · Feb 7, 2000

With regard to this doctrine, the Linder court found, in that case, a mayor clearly qualified as a high public official since he routinely made significant public policy decisions and was accountable to the voting public. … Since their alleged remarks were clearly within the scope of their authority as members of Moosic Borough Council, they are immune from suit for slander.

Mertz v. Temple University Hospital

25 Pa. D. & C.4th 541 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Jun 28, 1995

Litostansky clearly led to the decision to discharge Mr. Litostansky. Thus, the chain of causation was established, and there was no conflicting evidence on gross negligence. … Pinsker’s unfamiliarity with the Pennsylvania statute did not render him un *563 qualified to be an expert in psychiatry. The court did not abuse its discretion in qualifying Dr.

Hain v. Borough of West Reading

1 Pa. D. & C.5th 273 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Berks County · Nov 13, 2007

.” *276 To determine what constitutes a statutory employer, our courts have relied on long-standing precedent established by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in the case of McDonald v. … He fell from the scaffolding, suffering injuries. *277 Under these facts, Stirling clearly qualifies as a statutory employer, meeting all five requirements of the McDonald test.

Player v. Singer

18 Pa. D. & C.4th 505 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Clearfield County · Dec 17, 1992

Further, under 21 Pa.C.S. §6318(a) and (b) he is immune from civil liability and is by law presumed to have acted in good faith. … In a clearly similar situation, the court in Roman found that the complaint faded to overcome the good-faith presumption established by the statute and noted that the mandated reporter under the Act need not have “probable

Harrell v. Porter

19 Pa. D. & C.2d 385 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Alleghany County · Dec 26, 1958

Plaintiff’s averments as to the place of the alleged negligent acts clearly establish that the locus in quo was on or about that portion of the Pennsylvania Turnpike which is subject to the provisions of the Western Pennsylvaina … The Ewalt decision established the rule that, except as otherwise expressly provided by statute, the commission is immune from liability for negligent acts of its employes.

Friendship Fire Co. No. 2 v. Durbano

27 Pa. D. & C.4th 88 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Delaware County · Jul 21, 1995

An attorney does not qualify as an appropriate receiver of the complaint under Pa.R.C.P 402(a). … An attorney does not qualify as an authorized agent unless the client expressly grants him that authority.

Architects' Certificates

4 Pa. D. & C. 766 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Harrisburg County · May 15, 1924

An examination of all of its provisions clearly shows that the act contemplated natural persons only. … I do not think that it is competent for a corporation to practice medicine, even through duly qualified agents.”

LaCaffinie v. PennDot

16 Pa. D. & C.4th 363 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Fayette County · Jul 23, 1992

On the contrary, LaCaffinie’s “question” was in fact a qualified and conditional assent to chemical testing. … .” *369 The Commonwealth Court has never held that a motorist can require a hospital to waive the immunity provided by this statutory provision.

Corcoran v. Rizzo

47 Pa. D. & C.3d 92 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Montgomery County · Apr 15, 1986

Commonwealth, supra, the courts had found a wide variety of officials to qualify as “high public officials” and therefore entitled to absolute immunity. See Jonnet v. … Defendant is amply qualified as a public official under the test in Montgomery v.