The Commonwealth Court recently issued two decisions that upheld immunity for local governmental entities involving injuries sustained on government-owned property. The first case involved immunity under the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act and the second involved immunity under the Recreational Use of Land and Water Act.
In Nardo v. City of Philadelphia, 2010 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 9 (2010), the Plaintiff filed an action against the City for injuries he sustained while working at a City owned golf course. Plaintiff was employed by the management company that operated the course. Plaintiff was digging in a flower bed when he dug through a 2-inch layer of topsoil and struck asphalt and concrete under the topsoil. This fill material was deposited by an unknown independent contractor while the course was being operated by a previous concessionaire of the course. Under the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act (“Act”), governmental immunity is waived with respect to injuries arising out of the care, custody or control of real property, but only to the extent of the active negligence of the subdivision or its employee(s). Accordingly, the City was found not negligent at trial.
On appeal, Plaintiff sought to expand the real property exception to sovereign immunity under the Political Subdivisions Tort Claims Act, §8522(b)(2). The Commonwealth Court declined holding that the immunity exception for the care, custody or control of real property does not include the negligence of an independent contractor and that a political subdivision cannot be held liable for its alleged negligent supervision or control of a project such as the construction of the flower bed by a third party.
In Davis v. City of Philadelphia, 2010 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 15 (2010), Plaintiff fractured his leg during a flag football game in Fairmont Park, when he stepped into a depression. Fairmont Park is owned by the City. The lower court granted summary judgment in favor of the City under the immunity granted by the Recreational Use of Land and Water Act (RULWA). Under RULWA, a property owner is immune from liability for injuries sustained by a person involved in recreational activities on unimproved property where no admission fee is charged.
On appeal, the Commonwealth Court affirmed. The Court rejected the argument that the Park was improved and therefore not subject to RULWA. The Court found that because the field where the game was played was not highly-developed, RULWA applied. Also, the Court held that although the flag football league paid the City a fee for exclusive use of the field for certain dates, Plaintiff’s team never paid its registration fee to the league, Plaintiff never paid dues to his team captain and the league did not have a permit to use the field on the date of the incident; therefore, the City did not charge the Plaintiff to use the field on the day the incident occurred. Finally, even assuming that the City was willful or malicious with respect to the conditions of the field to overcome the immunity granted under the RULWA, the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act would protect the City from liability for such claims.
Any questions regarding these cases can be directed to Dave Schwalm at 717-255-7643 or dschwalm@tthlaw.com.