Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes

42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5111 (2026)

Limitations on damages (Repealed).

✓ current as of May 2026

Coverage note: this corpus holds the consolidated Pa.C.S. titles only. Unconsolidated P.S. statutes (UTPCPL 73 P.S. § 201-1, Liquor Code, wage payment laws) are not included; a miss here does not mean the statute does not exist. Check palegis.us.

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section PA-LEGpalegis.us JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

§ 5111. Limitations on damages (Repealed).

1980 Repeal. Section 5111 was repealed October 5, 1980, P.L.693, No.142, effective in 60 days. The subject matter is now contained in Chapter 85 of this title.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 12 cases, 1983–2003 · leading case: Tulewicz v. Se. Pennsylvania Transp. Auth., 606 A.2d 427 (Pa. 1992).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Tulewicz v. Se. Pennsylvania Transp. Auth., 606 A.2d 427 (Pa. 1992). · cites it 6× “§ 8522(a), [4] the section cited in their prior filings, but rather under 42 Pa.C.S. § 5111, [5] Act No. 1978-152, P.”

Keystone Aerial Surveys, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Prop. & Cas. Ins. Guar. Ass'n, 829 A.2d 297 (Pa. 2003). · cites it 2× “Reading the PPCIGA Act's limitation in light of the Pennsylvania wrongful death statute, the common pleas court thus agreed with the Association that the PPCIGA Act recognizes only a single claim for wrongful death of a person, regardless of the number of potential wrongful…”

Lyles v. Com., Dept. of Transp., 516 A.2d 701 (Pa. 1986). · cites it 2× “NOTES [1] At the time of the accident, the applicable statute was Section 511 of the Judicial Code, formerly 42 Pa.C.S. § 5111. Section 5111 was repealed by the Act of October 5, 1980, P.”

Keystone Aerial Surveys, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Prop. & Cas. Ins. Guar. Ass'n, 777 A.2d 84 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2001). “” Tulewicz, 606 A2d at 430 , citing, 42 Pa.C.S. § 5111 (repealed). Our Supreme Court held that a wrongful death action has only one “plaintiff,” even though multiple people may be beneficiaries of such an action.”

Richardson v. LaBuz, 474 A.2d 1181 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1984). “Section 5111 of the Judiciary Code, formerly 42 Pa. C. S. §5111, repealed by section 221(g) of the Act of October 5, 1980, P.”

Lyles v. City of Philadelphia, 490 A.2d 936 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1985). “Section 5111 of the Judicial Code, formerly 42 Pa. C. S. §5111, repealed by the Act of October 5, 1980, P.”

Commonwealth v. Phillips, 488 A.2d 77 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1985). “DOT further asserts that the trial court erred because it failed to apply the ¡statutory limitations with regard to the assessment of delay damages and because it should have retroactively applied the limitations on damages pursuant to Section 8528 of the Judicial 'Code,…”

Germantown Sav. Bank v. City of Philadelphia, 512 A.2d 756 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1986). “The jury may award such damages as the evidence warrants; that award, however, must be reduced by the amount of insurance proceeds paid to the Appellants.”

Commonwealth v. Twentier, 464 A.2d 642 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1983). “Section 5111 of the Judicial Code, formerly 42 Pa. C. S. §5111, repealed by Section 221(g) of the Act of October 5, 1980, *539 P.”

Pine v. Synkonis, 470 A.2d 1074 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1984). “) *490 formerly 42 Pa. C. S. §5111. This language limiting the amount of recovery was applicable only to the Commonwealth.”

Commonwealth v. Consol. Rail Corp., 519 A.2d 1058 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1986). “When Conrail commenced its action in July 1980, Section 2 of the Sovereign Immunity Act (Act 152) Section 5111 of the Judicial Code, formerly 42 Pa. C. S. §5111, controlled. This statute was repealed by the Act of October 5, 1980, P.”

Penndot v. Conrail., 519 A.2d 1058 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1986). “[2] When Conrail commenced its action in July 1980, Section 2 of the Sovereign Immunity Act (Act 152) Section 5111 of the Judicial Code, formerly 42 Pa. C. S. §5111, controlled. This statute was repealed by the Act of October 5, 1980, P.”

— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5111(a) — 1 case

Tulewicz v. Se. Pennsylvania Transp. Auth., 606 A.2d 427 (Pa. 1992). “§ 8522(a), [4] the section cited in their prior filings, but rather under 42 Pa.C.S. § 5111, [5] Act No. 1978-152, P.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.