Metropolitan Edison Co. v. City of Reading
125 A.3d 499
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2015Background
- Reading excavated a site on N. 5th Street to access a sanitary sewer main and uncovered Met-Ed’s underground electrical duct bank, which was exposed and partially collapsed.
- Reading notified Met-Ed; Met-Ed’s contractor (Homan) repaired the duct bank on July 10, 2009, and warned Reading’s Sewer Dept. supervisor (Farrier) to backfill promptly and/or shore the excavation.
- Reading did not shore or promptly backfill; further erosion occurred and the duct bank fully collapsed on July 20, 2009.
- Met-Ed sued Reading for negligence and sought damages; Reading claimed immunity under the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act (Act), 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 8541–8542.
- The trial court found Reading not immune, held it negligent, and awarded Met-Ed $53,000. Reading appealed.
- The Commonwealth Court reversed, holding the dangerous condition originated from Reading employees’ excavation conduct and thus Section 8542(b)(5) did not apply to deprive Reading of immunity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Reading is immune under the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act (42 Pa.C.S. § 8541) | Met‑Ed: exception for dangerous utility facilities (§ 8542(b)(5)) applies because the unstable soil under the duct bank was a dangerous condition of property | Reading: dangerous condition originated from its employees’ excavation conduct, so the § 8542(b)(5) exception does not apply and Reading is immune | Court: Held Reading is immune; the dangerous condition derived from Reading’s excavation conduct, not from Reading’s own utility facilities |
| Whether Reading had notice and time to remedy a dangerous condition under § 8542(b)(5) | Met‑Ed: contractor warned Reading; Reading had notice and could have shored/backfilled to prevent collapse | Reading: even if aware, the underlying dangerous condition was not a defect of Reading’s facilities triggering the exception | Court: Did not reach detailed notice analysis because § 8542(b)(5) inapplicable where condition originated from excavation conduct |
Key Cases Cited
- Metropolitan Edison Company v. Reading Area Water Authority, 937 A.2d 1173 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007) (dangerous-condition exception requires condition to originate in the local agency’s realty rather than from employee conduct)
- Lockwood v. City of Pittsburgh, 751 A.2d 1136 (Pa. 2000) (exceptions to governmental immunity are construed narrowly)
- Miller v. Department of Transportation, 690 A.2d 818 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1997) (injury must be caused by a condition of the property that has its origin in the property for § 8542(b)(5) to apply)
- DeTurk v. South Lebanon Township, 542 A.2d 213 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1988) (contrast: dangerous condition derived from the roadway surface itself, bringing the township within § 8542(b)(5) exception)
- Gibellino v. Manchester Township, 109 A.3d 336 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015) (general principle that local agencies are presumptively immune under the Act)