Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
25 Pennsylvania opinions name it 1 courts 1993–2025 4 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Pennsylvania courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
La Frankie v. Miklichgreen2 sentences2025The threshold questions in determining whether a Commonwealth party may be liable for negligent employee actions are “whether the Commonwealth employee was acting within the scope of his or her employment; whether the alleged act which causes injury was negligent and damages would be recoverable but for the availability of the immunity defense; and whether the act fits within one of the nine exceptions to sovereign immunity.” La Frankie v. Miklich, 618 A.2d 1145, 1149 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1992). 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 8522(b)(3) allows litigants to raise “claims for damages caused by … [t]he care, custody or c 2023Thus, to determine whether a Commonwealth employee is protected from liability under sovereign immunity, we must consider “whether the Commonwealth employee was acting within the scope of [their] employment; whether the alleged act which causes injury was negligent and damages would be recoverable but for the availability of 7 the immunity defense; and whether the act fits within one of the nine exceptions to sovereign immunity.” La Frankie, 618 A.2d at 1149 . | 7 | 17 |
Williams v. Syedgreen2 sentences2023See Williams v. Syed, 782 A.2d 1090 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2001). 10 the scope of his or her employment; whether the alleged act which causes injury was negligent and damages would be recoverable but for the availability of the immunity defense; and whether the act fits within one of the nine exceptions to sovereign immunity.” Id. at 122 (quoting La Frankie v. Miklich, 618 A.2d 1145, 1149 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1992)); see also Section 8522 of the Judicial Code, 42 Pa.C.S. § 8522, commonly known as the Sovereign Immunity Act (Act). 2023See Williams v. Syed, 782 A.2d 1090 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2001). 10 the scope of his or her employment; whether the alleged act which causes injury was negligent and damages would be recoverable but for the availability of the immunity defense; and whether the act fits within one of the nine exceptions to sovereign immunity.” Id. at 122 (quoting La Frankie v. Miklich, 618 A.2d 1145, 1149 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1992)); see also Section 8522 of the Judicial Code, 42 Pa.C.S. § 8522, commonly known as the Sovereign Immunity Act (Act). | 3 | 4 |
Cowell v. Commonwealth, Department of Transportationgreen2 sentences2013Cowell, 883 A.2d at 708 (emphasis added). “[A] plaintiff seeking to prevail in a negligence action against the Commonwealth must demonstrate that [his] claim is one that, if proven, would satisfy the common law requirements for a negligence claim and that one of the exceptions to sovereign immunity applies.” Lambert, 8 A.3d at 417 . [I]n order to prevail in a negligence action under common law, the plaintiff must establish that: (1) the defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff; (2) that duty was breached; (3) the breach resulted in the plaintiffs injury; and (4) the plaintiff suffered an 2012Cowell, 883 A.2d at 708 . | 1 | 2 |
Williams v. Stickmangreen1 sentence2025See Williams v. Stickman, 917 A.2d 915 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2001). | 1 | 1 |
Bronson v. Lechwardgreen1 sentence2019See Bronson, 624 A.2d at 801-02 (holding that where plaintiff did not aver that Commonwealth employees acted outside scope of their duties and that Commonwealth employees’ actions were within any exception to sovereign immunity, trial court correctly determined that employees were immune from suit and that suit was frivolous). 3 The nine exceptions to sovereign immunity relate to: vehicle liability; medical professional liability; care, custody or control of personal property; Commonwealth real estate, highways and sidewalks; potholes and other dangerous conditions; care, custody or control of | 1 | 1 |
Wilson v. Marrowgreen1 sentence2018See Wilson v. Marrow , 917 A.2d 357 , 364 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Heicklen v. Hoffman
green
1 sentence2018Heicklen v. Hoffman , 761 A.2d 207 , 209 n.7 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Fitzgerald v. McCutcheon
green
1 sentence2017In setting forth that standard, we cited to Fitzgerald v. McCutcheon, 270 Pa.Super, 102, 410 A.2d 1270 (1979), which relied oh this provision to define scope of employment, The Restatement (Second) of Agency (1958), § 228, defines conduct within the scope of employment as follows: (1) Conduct of a servant is within the scope of employment if, but only if: (a) it is of the kind he is employed to perform; (b) it occurs substantially within the authorized time and space limits; (c) it is actuated, at least in part, by a purpose to serve the master; and (d) if force is intentionally used by the se | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Lambert v. Katz
green
1 sentence2013Cowell, 883 A.2d at 708 (emphasis added). “[A] plaintiff seeking to prevail in a negligence action against the Commonwealth must demonstrate that [his] claim is one that, if proven, would satisfy the common law requirements for a negligence claim and that one of the exceptions to sovereign immunity applies.” Lambert, 8 A.3d at 417 . [I]n order to prevail in a negligence action under common law, the plaintiff must establish that: (1) the defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff; (2) that duty was breached; (3) the breach resulted in the plaintiffs injury; and (4) the plaintiff suffered an | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Norbert v. Com., State Police
green
1 sentence1995Norbert v. State Police, 148 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 505, 611 A.2d 1353 (1992). *114 The Mosers allege that under either the corporate theory of liability or the ostensible agency theory of liability, Ashland and DPW owed a duty of care to Moser, which duty was breached, exposing these Commonwealth parties to tort liability. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Bruce v. Com., Dept. of Transp.
green
1 sentence1993Bruce v. Department of Transportation, 138 *233 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 187, 588 A.2d 974 (1991), petition for allowance of appeal denied, 533 Pa. 626 , 620 A.2d 492 (1993). 9 . | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.