The Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court recently issued two decisions that uphold immunity for local governmental entities under the Pennsylvania Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act. In both cases, the plaintiffs sought to expand the motor vehicle exception to sovereign immunity under §8522(b)(1). Under the Act, governmental immunity is waived with respect to injuries arising out of the operation of a motor vehicle or any attachment to the vehicle. Injuries sustained while getting onto or off of a vehicle, however, do not fall within the exception to immunity if the vehicle or its parts were not in operation. Both of these cases involved transportation by a government owned vehicle. 

 

In Mannella v. Port Authority of Allegheny County, 982 A.2d 130 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2009), Anthony Mannella was injured while exiting a Port Authority bus when he fell out of his wheelchair. The driver allegedly deployed the bus wheelchair ramp on uneven ground without properly securing it. Courts have held that when an exiting passenger was hit by a door being closed, or by the vehicle rolling backwards because the parking brake was not set, those injuries arose out of the operation of the vehicle. Nevertheless, in this case, while it was necessary for the wheelchair ramp to move down to allow the wheelchair to exit the bus, the ramp was not “in operation” at the time of the injury. Accordingly, the Court concluded that the Port Authority was entitled to immunity.

 

The second case is Phillips v. Washington County Transportation Authority, ___ A.2d ___, 2009 Pa. Commw. Ct., LEXIS 1677 (2009). In this case, the plaintiff had a mild form of mental retardation and was unable to drive. As a result, he regularly used the Authority’s service for transport to work. On his return home from work and after exiting the bus, the plaintiff was struck by another vehicle. Plaintiff attempted to circumvent the immunity of the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act by contending that the operator of the bus dropped him off across the street from his home. It was undisputed that the bus had remained parked at all times during the incident. Plaintiff contended that the motor vehicle exception should apply as stopping the bus on the opposite side of the road from plaintiff’s home was the cause of the injuries because (1) it was against the Transportation Authority’s policy to drop a passenger off across a road from the passenger’s home and (2) on all prior occasions, the plaintiff had been dropped off on the same side of the road as his home. The Commonwealth Court, however, refused to expand the scope of the exception in light of prior case law.

 

Any questions regarding these cases can be directed to Dave Schwalm at 717-255-7643 or dschwalm@tthlaw.com.