school claim in Pennsylvania

2019Those students’ “silent, passive expression of opinion” in favor of peace over violence, id. at 508 , was in no way similar to Appellant’s threat to commit mass murder. - 16 - J-S12006-19 disregard for the likelihood that his words would engender fear in those who heard them.

2019Those students’ “silent, passive expression of opinion” in favor of peace over violence, id. at 508 , was in no way similar to Appellant’s threat to commit mass murder. - 16 - J-S12006-19 disregard for the likelihood that his words would engender fear in those who heard them.

2018The court, focusing on paragraph 10 of Mother's complaint, which alleged that Jarrett's injuries were caused by a "defective and dangerous condition of the premises caused directly by the actions/inactions of [the School] (ie., [sic] gym without safety mats)," Plaintiff's Complaint at ¶ 10, concluded that safety mats are personalty - not realty - and, thus, do not fall within the real property exception to governmental immunity under the Act, citing Rieger v. Altoona Area School District , 768 A.2d 912 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2001).

1995Duquesne Truck Serv. v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (McKeesport Truck Serv.), 165 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 145 , 644 A.2d 271 (1994). .

1995Duquesne Truck Serv. v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (McKeesport Truck Serv.), 165 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 145 , 644 A.2d 271 (1994). .

1988The Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court in Robson v. Penn Hills School District, 63 Pa. Commw. 250 , 437 A.2d 1273 (1981), stated that “it would be a total distortion of the language of section 202(b) (3) to allow the supervision or lack of supervision of school children to fall within the scope of care, custody and control of real property.’” * Therefore, it is clear that when plaintiffs claim relates to the inadequate supervision or security by teachers or support staff at a school the claim is precluded by governmental immunity.

1988The Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court in Robson v. Penn Hills School District, 63 Pa. Commw. 250 , 437 A.2d 1273 (1981), stated that “it would be a total distortion of the language of section 202(b) (3) to allow the supervision or lack of supervision of school children to fall within the scope of care, custody and control of real property.’” * Therefore, it is clear that when plaintiffs claim relates to the inadequate supervision or security by teachers or support staff at a school the claim is precluded by governmental immunity.

1949In this connection 'purely’ must be construed in the popular sense . . . the word *303 means completely, entirely, unqualifiedly: Donohugh’s App., 86 Pa. 306 ; White v. Smith, 189 Pa. 222 .” It was also pointed out in that opinion that: “Admission to the academy is not a privilege open to all Avho may apply, within the capacity of the school, but is restricted to those whom the headmaster in his discretion sees fit to admit.” Likewise, in the instant case Ave must assume that admission to this school is not a privilege open to all who may apply, as is, for example, the case of a public school,

1949In this connection 'purely’ must be construed in the popular sense . . . the word *303 means completely, entirely, unqualifiedly: Donohugh’s App., 86 Pa. 306 ; White v. Smith, 189 Pa. 222 .” It was also pointed out in that opinion that: “Admission to the academy is not a privilege open to all Avho may apply, within the capacity of the school, but is restricted to those whom the headmaster in his discretion sees fit to admit.” Likewise, in the instant case Ave must assume that admission to this school is not a privilege open to all who may apply, as is, for example, the case of a public school,