Metropolitan Edison, Aplt. v. City of Reading, 162 A.3d 414

Met-Ed supplies electricity and its underground conduit banks run within the City of Reading’s right‑of‑way; portions are encased in terra cotta or PVC conduit.
City sewer crews excavated near North 5th Street in July 2009, exposing and displacing earth supporting Met‑Ed’s conduit; a section of conduit fell into the trench.
Met‑Ed hired Homan Excavating to patch and stabilize the conduit; Homan warned the City that the excavation walls were unstable and needed backfilling/shoring.
The City continued excavating without shoring and did not backfill; heavy rain over the weekend washed away supporting soil and the conduit bank collapsed, requiring extensive repairs costing $53,000.
Met‑Ed sued the City for negligence invoking the Utility Service Facilities exception to governmental immunity (42 Pa.C.S. § 8542(b)(5)). Trial court entered judgment for Met‑Ed; the Commonwealth Court reversed, concluding the dangerous condition originated from the City’s negligent excavation (thus immunity applied).
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted review and reversed the Commonwealth Court, holding the Utility Exception applies where a dangerous condition of the agency’s utility facilities within the right‑of‑way caused the injury and the agency had notice but failed to remediate.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 8542(b)(5) (Utility Exception) applies when a dangerous condition exists in a local agency’s utility right‑of‑way even if the agency’s own excavation created that condition	Met‑Ed: Exception applies if a dangerous condition of the agency’s utility facilities in the right‑of‑way caused a reasonably foreseeable risk, and the agency had notice but failed to remediate	City: Exception does not apply where the dangerous condition originated from the agency’s negligent excavation; that is negligent conduct immune under the Tort Claims Act	Court: Utility Exception focuses on whether injury was caused by a dangerous condition of agency facilities in the right‑of‑way and notice/failure to remediate — genesis of the dangerous condition (including agency’s prior negligent act) is irrelevant; exception applies here
Whether plaintiff must prove the agency both created the dangerous condition and then failed to remediate it to pierce immunity	Met‑Ed: Creation by the agency is irrelevant; only notice and failure to remediate matter	City: Plaintiff must show City was responsible for placement of the unstable fill or otherwise created the condition	Court: Rejected requirement of two separate negligent acts; only failure to remediate a dangerous condition of the agency’s facilities after notice is the negligent act that triggers § 8542(b)(5)

Miller v. Pa. Dep't of Transp., 690 A.2d (Pa. Commw.) (interpreting “of the facilities … located within rights‑of‑way” to include the strip of land disturbed for repairs)
DeTurk v. South Lebanon Township, 542 A.2d (Pa. Commw.) (discusses application of utility exception in excavation contexts)
Metropolitan Edison Co. v. Reading Area Water Auth., 937 A.2d 1173 (Pa. Commw. 2007) (held dangerous condition in that case originated from employees’ conduct and did not qualify as a dangerous condition of water authority facilities)
Gall by Gall v. Allegheny County Health Dep’t, 555 A.2d (Pa.) (held plaintiffs sufficiently alleged a dangerous condition of water facilities of which authority had notice, applying the utility exception)