J.L. Camacho v. West Chester Area SD
390 C.D. 2017
Pa. Commw. Ct.Dec 27, 2017Background
- On Jan. 18, 2014, appellant Jewel Lee Camacho tripped on a concrete parking barrier placed horizontally across a walkway at West Chester East High School and sustained serious leg injuries.
- The parking barriers were not affixed to the ground; they were freely movable (two people could move one) and were designed to be removable to avoid plow damage. Students sometimes moved them as pranks.
- The School District removed the barriers after the accident. Camacho sued the School District on June 10, 2015.
- The School District moved for summary judgment under the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act (PSTCA), 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 8541–8542; the trial court granted summary judgment on March 1, 2017.
- Camacho appealed, arguing the real-property exception (§ 8542(b)(3)) or the traffic-sign/control exception (§ 8542(b)(4)) to governmental immunity applied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the parking barrier is "real property" under § 8542(b)(3) (real property exception) | Barrier created an unsafe condition of property and thus falls within the real property exception | Barrier was not affixed to the land and therefore remained personalty, so the real-property exception does not apply | Barrier was movable personalty; § 8542(b)(3) does not apply (following Blocker) |
| Whether the barrier is a traffic sign or traffic-control device under § 8542(b)(4) | Barrier regulated/warned or otherwise controlled traffic in the parking lot and thus fits the § 8542(b)(4) exception | Barrier merely delineated a parking space/end of space and was not a sign, signal, marking, or device erected to regulate, warn, or guide traffic | Barrier is not a traffic sign/control device under § 8542(b)(4); immunity exception inapplicable |
Key Cases Cited
- Grieff v. Reisinger, 693 A.2d 195 (Pa. 1997) (real-property exception can apply where negligent actions are part of maintenance/care of the realty)
- Blocker v. City of Philadelphia, 763 A.2d 373 (Pa. 2000) (chattel remains personalty absent attachment to realty; attachment is threshold inquiry for real-property analysis)
- Pettineo v. City of Philadelphia Law Dept.-Claims Div., 721 A.2d 65 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1998) (devices like rope placed to prevent travel can qualify as traffic control under § 8542(b)(4))
- Slough v. City of Philadelphia, 686 A.2d 62 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1996) (defective median is not a traffic control device under § 8542(b)(4) in anything beyond a broad sense)