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.
16 Pennsylvania opinions name it 3 courts 1997–2022 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Finn v. City of Philadelphiagreen2 sentences2019Falor, 102 A.3d at 588 (citing Finn v. City of Phila., 664 A.2d 1342, 1345 (Pa. 1995)). 2014Rather, it must be alleged that the local agency’s real property “itself causes the injury, not merely [that] it facilitates the injury by the acts of others.” Finn v. City of Philadelphia, 541 Pa. 596 , 664 A.2d 1342, 1345 (1995) (emphasis in original) (quoting Mascaro v. Youth Study Center, 514 Pa. 351 , 523 A.2d 1118, 1124 (1987)). 6 Le-Nature’s, Inc., 913 A.2d 988 , is instructive. | 2 | 3 |
Medicus v. Upper Merion Townshipgreen2 sentences2017See McCarthy, 962 A.2d at 1279 - 80 (evidence of numerous instances of flooding between 1986 and 1999, numerous instances of sewage infiltration between 1999 and 2006, and complaints to municipality about the sewer system problems beginning in 1999 satisfied the utility service facilities exception notice requirement with respect to a claim for damage caused by a 2005 sewage backup); Medicus, 475 A.2d at 919, 921 (three separate incidents of flooding in a three-month period in the year in question were held sufficient to satisfy the notice requirement); Johns, 474 A.2d at 1201, 1203 (plaintiff 2017Glencannon Homes Association, Inc. v. North Strabane Township, 116 A.3d 706, 719 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015) (en banc); DeTurk v. South Lebanon Township, 116 Pa.Cmwlth. 557 , 542 A.2d 213, 215 (1988); Medicus v. Upper Merion Township, 82 Pa.Cmwlth. 303 , 475 A.2d 918, 919-21 (1984). 5 . | 2 | 2 |
McCarthy v. City of Bethlehemgreen2 sentences2017See McCarthy, 962 A.2d at 1279 - 80 (evidence of numerous instances of flooding between 1986 and 1999, numerous instances of sewage infiltration between 1999 and 2006, and complaints to municipality about the sewer system problems beginning in 1999 satisfied the utility service facilities exception notice requirement with respect to a claim for damage caused by a 2005 sewage backup); Medicus, 475 A.2d at 919, 921 (three separate incidents of flooding in a three-month period in the year in question were held sufficient to satisfy the notice requirement); Johns, 474 A.2d at 1201, 1203 (plaintiff 2016Section 8542(b)(5) of the PSTCA, the utility service facilities exception, provides that a local agency may be held liable for: A dangerous condition of the facilities of ... sewer ... owned by the local agency and located within rights-of-way, except that the claimant to recover must establish that the dangerous condition created a reasonably foreseeable risk of the kind of injury which was incurred and that the local agency had actual notice or could reasonably be charged with notice under the circumstances of the dangerous condition at a sufficient time prior to the event to have taken meas | 2 | 2 |
City of Washington v. Johnsgreen2 sentences2017King v. Pittsburgh Water & Sewer Authority, 139 A.3d 336, 352 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016); Gibellino v. Manchester Township, 109 A.3d 336, 342-43 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015); 5 McCarthy, 962 A.2d at 1279-80 ; Miller v. Lykens Borough Authority, 712 A.2d 800, 802 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1998); Johns, 474 A.2d at 1202 . 2017See McCarthy, 962 A.2d at 1279 - 80 (evidence of numerous instances of flooding between 1986 and 1999, numerous instances of sewage infiltration between 1999 and 2006, and complaints to municipality about the sewer system problems beginning in 1999 satisfied the utility service facilities exception notice requirement with respect to a claim for damage caused by a 2005 sewage backup); Medicus, 475 A.2d at 919, 921 (three separate incidents of flooding in a three-month period in the year in question were held sufficient to satisfy the notice requirement); Johns, 474 A.2d at 1201, 1203 (plaintiff | 1 | 2 |
E. King v. Pittsburgh Water and Sewer Authoritygreen2 sentences2017King v. Pittsburgh Water & Sewer Authority, 139 A.3d 336, 352 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016); Gibellino v. Manchester Township, 109 A.3d 336, 342-43 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015); 5 McCarthy, 962 A.2d at 1279-80 ; Miller v. Lykens Borough Authority, 712 A.2d 800, 802 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1998); Johns, 474 A.2d at 1202 . 2017King v. Pittsburgh Water & Sewer Auth., 139 A.3d 336 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016). | 1 | 2 |
D. Sobat and E. Sobat v. The Borough of Midland ~ Appeal of: E. Sobatgreen1 sentence2022Moreover, the trial court does not abuse its discretion in failing to grant leave to amend where further amendment could not circumvent a defendant’s immunity.” Sobat, 141 A.3d at 627 (discerning no abuse of the trial court’s discretion in failing to give plaintiff an opportunity to amend her complaint where plaintiff’s numerous assertions would not establish the utility service facilities exception to governmental immunity). 8 In response, the Authority and its Employees concede that a claim for negligent conversion may lie under 42 Pa.C.S. § 8522(b)(3), the personal property exception to sov | 1 | 1 |
Restifo v. City of Philadelphiagreen1 sentence2019See Koerth v. Borough of Turtle Creek, 49 A.2d 398 , 399–400 (Pa. 1946) (“It is, of course, the duty of a municipality to maintain its sidewalks in a reasonably safe condition or, rather, when it has reasonable notice express or implied of a defective condition, to see that the property owner performs his duty to make the necessary repairs, the liability of the latter being primary and a[b]solute, that of the municipality secondary and supplemental.”); see also Restifo v. City of Phila., 617 A.2d 818, 820 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1992) (“a property owner has the primary duty of keeping the sidewalk in fro | 1 | 1 |
Lockwood v. City of Pittsburghgreen1 sentence2019“Because of the [Tort Claims Act’s] clear intent to insulate government from exposure to tort liability, the exceptions to immunity are to be strictly construed.” Lockwood v. City of Pittsburgh, 751 A.2d 1136, 1139 (Pa. 2000). | 1 | 1 |
Koerth v. Turtle Creek Boroughgreen1 sentence2019See Koerth v. Borough of Turtle Creek, 49 A.2d 398 , 399–400 (Pa. 1946) (“It is, of course, the duty of a municipality to maintain its sidewalks in a reasonably safe condition or, rather, when it has reasonable notice express or implied of a defective condition, to see that the property owner performs his duty to make the necessary repairs, the liability of the latter being primary and a[b]solute, that of the municipality secondary and supplemental.”); see also Restifo v. City of Phila., 617 A.2d 818, 820 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1992) (“a property owner has the primary duty of keeping the sidewalk in fro | 1 | 1 |
DeTurk v. South Lebanon Townshipgreen2 sentences2017Glencannon Homes Association, Inc. v. North Strabane Township, 116 A.3d 706, 719 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015) (en banc); DeTurk v. South Lebanon Township, 116 Pa.Cmwlth. 557 , 542 A.2d 213, 215 (1988); Medicus v. Upper Merion Township, 82 Pa.Cmwlth. 303 , 475 A.2d 918, 919-21 (1984). 5 . 2017Glencannon Homes Association, Inc. v. North Strabane Township, 116 A.3d 706, 719 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015) (en banc); DeTurk v. South Lebanon Township, 116 Pa.Cmwlth. 557 , 542 A.2d 213, 215 (1988); Medicus v. Upper Merion Township, 82 Pa.Cmwlth. 303 , 475 A.2d 918, 919-21 (1984). 5 . | 1 | 1 |
Miller v. Lykens Borough Authoritygreen1 sentence2017King v. Pittsburgh Water & Sewer Authority, 139 A.3d 336, 352 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016); Gibellino v. Manchester Township, 109 A.3d 336, 342-43 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015); 5 McCarthy, 962 A.2d at 1279-80 ; Miller v. Lykens Borough Authority, 712 A.2d 800, 802 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1998); Johns, 474 A.2d at 1202 . | 1 | 1 |
Gibellino v. Manchester Townshipgreen1 sentence2017King v. Pittsburgh Water & Sewer Authority, 139 A.3d 336, 352 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016); Gibellino v. Manchester Township, 109 A.3d 336, 342-43 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015); 5 McCarthy, 962 A.2d at 1279-80 ; Miller v. Lykens Borough Authority, 712 A.2d 800, 802 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1998); Johns, 474 A.2d at 1202 . | 1 | 1 |
Glencannon Homes Ass'n v. North Strabane Townshipgreen1 sentence2017Glencannon Homes Association, Inc. v. North Strabane Township, 116 A.3d 706, 719 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015) (en banc); DeTurk v. South Lebanon Township, 116 Pa.Cmwlth. 557 , 542 A.2d 213, 215 (1988); Medicus v. Upper Merion Township, 82 Pa.Cmwlth. 303 , 475 A.2d 918, 919-21 (1984). 5 . | 1 | 1 |
Dunkle v. Middleburg Municipal Authoritygreen1 sentence2016Further, the Borough defendants argue that Sobat's negligent misrepresentation claim cannot proceed under the utility service facilities exception to immunity because she failed to plead the existence of a dangerous condition of a sanitary sewer facility owned by the Borough and that the Borough defendants had prior notice of the alleged dangerous condition. 6 Discussion Pursuant to sections 8541 and 8542 of the PSTCA, a local agency is immune from liability for damages on account of an injury to a person or property caused by its own acts or the acts of its employees unless the injury falls i | 1 | 1 |
Hui v. City of Philadelphia Parking Authoritygreen1 sentence2016We recognized that the relevant inquiry in determining whether the exception applied is "whether the allegedly dangerous condition derived from, originated or had its source as the local agency's realty." Le-Nature's, 913 A.2d at 994. | 1 | 1 |
Mascaro v. Youth Study Centergreen2 sentences2014Rather, it must be alleged that the local agency’s real property “itself causes the injury, not merely [that] it facilitates the injury by the acts of others.” Finn v. City of Philadelphia, 541 Pa. 596 , 664 A.2d 1342, 1345 (1995) (emphasis in original) (quoting Mascaro v. Youth Study Center, 514 Pa. 351 , 523 A.2d 1118, 1124 (1987)). 6 Le-Nature’s, Inc., 913 A.2d 988 , is instructive. 2014Rather, it must be alleged that the local agency’s real property “itself causes the injury, not merely [that] it facilitates the injury by the acts of others.” Finn v. City of Philadelphia, 541 Pa. 596 , 664 A.2d 1342, 1345 (1995) (emphasis in original) (quoting Mascaro v. Youth Study Center, 514 Pa. 351 , 523 A.2d 1118, 1124 (1987)). 6 Le-Nature’s, Inc., 913 A.2d 988 , is instructive. | 1 | 1 |
Verna v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences1997See Verna by Verna v. Commonwealth, 149 Pa.Cmwlth. 449 , 613 A.2d 174 (1992), appeal denied, 533 Pa. 647 , 622 A.2d 1378 (1993) (absent an express written contract for repair and maintenance, duties imposed trader statutes or regulations do not amount to “care, custody and control” for purposes of establishing liability under the streets exception). 1997See Verna by Verna v. Commonwealth, 149 Pa.Cmwlth. 449 , 613 A.2d 174 (1992), appeal denied, 533 Pa. 647 , 622 A.2d 1378 (1993) (absent an express written contract for repair and maintenance, duties imposed trader statutes or regulations do not amount to “care, custody and control” for purposes of establishing liability under the streets exception). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Metropolitan Edison Co. v. Reading Area Water Authority
green
2 sentences2017The court explained that, "in order for the utility service facilities exception to apply, the allegedly dangerous condition must have derived or originated from, or had its source as the local agency's realty." Id. at 1175 . 2017The city then highlights the intermediate court's reliance on Reading Area Water Authority - specifically, that decision's explanation that the city was immunized because, "in order for the utility service facilities exception to apply, the allegedly dangerous condition must have derived or originated from, or had its source as the local agency's realty." Id. at 11 (quoting Reading Area Water Authority, 937 A.2d at 1175 ) (italics in original, bolding omitted); see also Majority - Opinion, slip op. at 9 (summarizing the city's arguments). | 3 | 2016–2017 |
County of Allegheny v. Dominijanni
green
2 sentences2017With respect to the utility service facilities exception, would expressly adopt the I following position set forth by the Commonwealth Court in Miller v. Pa. Dep't of Transp., 690 A.2d 818 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1997): In County of Allegheny v. Dominijanni, 109 Pa. Cmwlth. 484, 531 A.2d 562 (1987), the Court held that the term "right-of-way," as used in this exception included the strip of land on which the local agency constructed its utility service facilities. 2017With respect to the utility service facilities exception, I would expressly adopt the following position set forth by the Commonwealth Court in Miller v. Pa. Dep’t of Transp., 690 A.2d 818 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1997): In County of Allegheny v. Dominijanni, 109 Pa. Cmwlth. 484, 531 A.2d 562 (1987), the Court held that the term “right-of-way,” as used in this exception included the strip of land on which the local agency constructed its utility service facilities. | 3 | 1997–2017 |
Miller v. Commonwealth
green
2 sentences2017With respect to the utility service facilities exception, would expressly adopt the I following position set forth by the Commonwealth Court in Miller v. Pa. Dep't of Transp., 690 A.2d 818 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1997): In County of Allegheny v. Dominijanni, 109 Pa. Cmwlth. 484, 531 A.2d 562 (1987), the Court held that the term "right-of-way," as used in this exception included the strip of land on which the local agency constructed its utility service facilities. 2017With respect to the utility service facilities exception, I would expressly adopt the following position set forth by the Commonwealth Court in Miller v. Pa. Dep’t of Transp., 690 A.2d 818 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1997): In County of Allegheny v. Dominijanni, 109 Pa. Cmwlth. 484, 531 A.2d 562 (1987), the Court held that the term “right-of-way,” as used in this exception included the strip of land on which the local agency constructed its utility service facilities. | 3 | 2017–2017 |
Le-Nature's, Inc. v. Latrobe Municipal Authority
green
2 sentences2016Relying on Metropolitan Edison Company v. Reading Area Water Authority, 937 A.2d 1173 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007), and Le-Nature’s Inc. v. Latrobe Municipal Authority, 913 A.2d 988 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006), the trial court concluded that Appellants’ claim did not fall within the utility service facilities exception to governmental immunity and granted the Authority’s motion for summary judgment. 2014In doing so, we explained that to fit the utility service facilities exception to governmental immunity, Le-Nature’s, Inc. had to “allege facts that establish a dangerous condition of the sewer system which created a foreseeable risk of harm after Latrobe had actual or constructive notice of it in time to protect against it.” Le-Nature’s, Inc., 913 A.2d at 993 . | 3 | 2007–2016 |
Falor v. Southwestern Pennsylvania Water Authority
green
1 sentence2019Falor, 102 A.3d at 588 (citing Finn v. City of Phila., 664 A.2d 1342, 1345 (Pa. 1995)). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Rawlings v. Bucks County Water & Sewer Authority
green
1 sentence2017While the Court stated in Rawlings that the plaintiffs’ “claims for damages for continuing trespass … upon their land” were “permitted under the exceptions provided in 42 Pa. C.S. § 8542(b)(3) and (5),” the Court did not consider the language and requirements of the utility service facilities exception and the Court’s holding that the trespass claim was within an exception to immunity because “the pumping station constructed by the Authority is ‘real property’ which continues to cause injury to Landowners’ property” applied only the real property exception. 702 A.2d at 587 . | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Metropolitan Edison Co. v. City of Reading
green
1 sentence2016Metropolitan Edison, 125 A.3d at 502 . | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Leggieri Et Ux. v. Twp. of Haverford
green
2 sentences2010The defendant relies on the case of Leggieri v. Township of Haverford, 98 Pa. Commw. 646 , 511 A.2d 955 (1986), for the assertion that the township is immune from liability. 2010The defendant relies on the case of Leggieri v. Township of Haverford, 98 Pa. Commw. 646 , 511 A.2d 955 (1986), for the assertion that the township is immune from liability. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Taylor v. Jackson
green
2 sentences2008Taylor v. Jackson, 164 Pa.Cmwlth. 482 , 643 A.2d 771 (1994). 2008Taylor v. Jackson, 164 Pa.Cmwlth. 482 , 643 A.2d 771 (1994). | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Gall v. Allegheny County Health Department
green
2 sentences1997In Gall by Gall v. Allegheny County Health Department, 521 Pa. 68 , 555 A.2d 786 (1989), the Supreme Court stated that under a plain reading of the utility service facilities exception, a local agency is not entitled to immunity where there is a dangerous condition of the facility located within its right-of-way if the plaintiff shows that the dangerous condition created a reasonably foreseeable risk and that the agency had notice of the dangerous condition. 1997In Gall by Gall v. Allegheny County Health Department, 521 Pa. 68 , 555 A.2d 786 (1989), the Supreme Court stated that under a plain reading of the utility service facilities exception, a local agency is not entitled to immunity where there is a dangerous condition of the facility located within its right-of-way if the plaintiff shows that the dangerous condition created a reasonably foreseeable risk and that the agency had notice of the dangerous condition. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
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.