Metropolitan Edison, Aplt. v. City of Reading, Metropolitan Edison, Aplt. v. City of Reading

Metropolitan Edison sued the City of Reading after damage to its underground electrical duct banks caused by loose soil beneath them.
The Commonwealth Court reversed the trial court, holding the city immune under the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act because the dangerous condition did not "originate from" the city’s sewer facilities.
The issue reached the Pennsylvania Supreme Court; Chief Justice Saylor issued a dissenting opinion (would affirm the Commonwealth Court) arguing the (b)(5) utility-facility exception did not apply.
Dispute centers on whether a dangerous condition "of" sewer facilities includes unstable soil in a trench adjacent to/above utility lines created or left by municipal excavation/backfilling.
The dissent emphasizes strict construction of immunity waivers and relies on precedent requiring the dangerous condition to derive from or be sourced in the government realty/facility itself.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does 42 Pa.C.S. §8542(b)(5) (utility-service-facility exception) apply when loose soil beneath duct banks causes damage?	Metro Edison: soil instability related to city excavation/backfilling is a dangerous condition tied to the sewer facilities, so exception applies.	City of Reading: the danger was soil (not the sewer line); exception requires the dangerous condition to be of the facility itself, so immunity applies.	Dissent: Held for City — soil instability did not originate from the sewer facility; (b)(5) exception does not apply; affirm Commonwealth Court.

Metropolitan Edison Co. v. Reading Area Water Authority, 937 A.2d 1173 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007) (holds utility-facility exception requires dangerous condition to derive from the agency's realty)
Miller v. PennDOT, 690 A.2d 818 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1997) (interprets exception to include disturbed land where pipe repair occurred)
Snyder v. Harmon, 562 A.2d 307 (Pa. 1989) (requires injury to be caused by a defect of the land itself for real-estate exception)
Finn v. City of Philadelphia, 664 A.2d 1342 (Pa. 1995) (interprets immunity exceptions narrowly; realty must be source of injury)
Gall v. Allegheny County Health Dep't, 555 A.2d 786 (Pa. 1989) (distinguishes cases where contamination arose from water authority facilities)
Jones v. SEPTA, 772 A.2d 435 (Pa. 2001) (reaffirms requirement that government realty be the source of injury for exception to apply)