What the Justices Face In the New Millenium

2000 could be a big year for the state’s highest court. While the justices took a breather in 1999, they have a chance to make it up in the year to come.





Here is a preview of some of the significant issues facing the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Y2K.

Immunity

* The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Pittsburgh in September in two cases that could potentially hold cities and municipalities open to increased liability in guardrail accidents.



In an appeal consolidating Lockwood v. City of Pittsburgh and Dean v. Department of Transportation, PICS Case No. 98-2030 (Pa. Commw. Sept. 18, 1998) Pellegrini, J.; Leadbetter & Kelley, JJ., concurring; Doyle, J., dissenting (18 pages), the justices will decide the future of the Commonwealth Court decision in Rothermel v. Department of Transportation, PICS Case No. 96-5667 (Pa. Commw. March 6, 1996) Friedman, J.; Pellegrini Smith, JJ., dissenting (22 pages).



In Rothermel, a majority of the en banc intermediate appeals court held that even if a plaintiff could show the lack of a guardrail was a dangerous condition of a highway, he or she would have to prove that was the only cause of the injury.



Rothermel put an end to the Lockwood plaintiff’s case, but then the decision was overturned by Dean.



The high court’s decision will indicate whether there is any life left in the Rothermel holding.



* The court also has agreed to hear a case that tests the limits of a municipality’s liability under the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act. In Richland Township v. Starr, the justices will decide to what extent a township can be held liable for an injury caused by its failure to restrict access to a state road.



Tracy Lyn Starr was driving on Sandy Hill Road in Richland Township, preparing to turn left onto southbound Route 8. She had to cross the two northbound lanes of the four-lane road to get there. As she was making the turn, a truck struck her car broadside in the northbound passing lane.



Starr sued the truck driver, his employer and PennDOT. Her complaint against PennDOT alleged improper design of the intersection, including inadequate sight distances, excessive permissible speed and failure to provide a traffic signal.



PennDOT joined Richland Township as a defendant, alleging that the township was responsible for the accident because it did not install a sign prohibiting left turns from the local road onto the state road. The township was found 40 percent and PennDOT 60 percent liable for Starr’s injuries.



The issue as framed by the Supreme Court is whether a local township can be held liable for an accident that occurs on a state highway because the local township did not restrict access from a local road to the state highway.



* The justices will decide just how important nuts and bolts are in proving that an object is a fixture for governmental immunity purposes.



The high court granted allocatur in Blocker v. City of Philadelphia, PICS Case No. 99-0861 (Pa. Commw. May 4, 1999 McCloskey, J. (18 pages), a case in which a woman fell off a bleacher on city-owned property and sued the city of Philadelphia under the real estate exception to governmental immunity.



Although the bleacher was not physically attached to the ground with fastening devices, the Commonwealth Court concluded that because the city of Philadelphia did not intend to move it, it was a fixture under the exception.



The Commonwealth Court ruled an object does not have to be physically attached to property to be a fixture.



* In York Haven Power Co. v. Stone, PICS Case No. 98-1672 (Pa. Super. July 24, 1998) Stevens, J. (7 pages), the court is poised to clear up the confusion over whether land open for recreation must be “unimproved” in order for the landowner to gain the immunity provided in the Recreation Use of Land and Water Act.



Lynn Meinsler and Kenneth Stone, along with several friends, were drinking beer and eating at the Falls Hotel off the Susquehanna River. Stone and Meinsler at about 11:30 p.m. got into their boat to return to their cabin on Poplar Island in the river. Their boat was found empty the next day, lodged in a dam owned by the York Haven Power Co. and Metropolitan Edison Co.



The widows of Meinsler and Stone brought lawsuits against the power companies claiming negligence in the failure to use adequate navigational aids and buoys to advise boaters of the presence of the dam, negligent inspection and maintenance of warning lights and failure to put a barrier across the river.



The trial court denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the basis of RULWA, finding that the creation of a lake by damming the river was a “substantial improvement” to the land, rendering RULWA’s immunity provision inapplicable. The Superior Court affirmed.

Torts