88 A.3d 269
Pa. Commw. Ct.2014Background
- Muldrow injured disembarking from SEPTA Route H bus on Dec 22, 2009, claiming negligence caused head/neck/back injuries.
- Arbitration in 2012 ruled in SEPTA’s favor; trial court later upheld summary judgment for SEPTA.
- Muldrow appealed; SEPTA moved for summary judgment asserting sovereign immunity under 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 8521-8528.
- Muldrow relied on Goldman to argue SEPTA is a Commonwealth agency and thus not immune, and argued the vehicle and personal property exceptions apply.
- The court ultimately affirmed summary judgment, addressing immunities and exceptions, including waiver issues and whether the vehicle or personal property exceptions apply.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Goldman precludes SEPTA immunity under the Sovereign Immunity Act | Goldman binds SEPTA as a non-arm of the Commonwealth | Goldman involves Eleventh Amendment immunity; not controlling for state sovereignty; SEPTA is a Commonwealth agency | Goldman does not control; SEPTA is a Commonwealth agency for Sovereign Immunity Act purposes |
| Whether the vehicle liability exception applies to Muldrow’s claim | Claim falls within 8522(b)(1) as operation of a motor vehicle | Muldrow waived issue; Love holds stopped bus not in operation; no operation here | Waived; even if raised, Love shows stopped bus not in operation, so exception does not apply |
| Whether the personal property exception applies to SEPTA bus as the alleged cause | Bus as personal property caused the fall | Bus is not personal property; even if so, ice caused fall; argument undeveloped/waived | Undeveloped waiver; even if considered, case law shows bus is not personal property for this purpose; cannot prevail |
Key Cases Cited
- Goldman v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, 618 Pa. 501 (2012) (SEPTA statutorily classified as a Commonwealth agency; Eleventh Amendment immunity differs from state sovereign immunity)
- Frazier v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Bayada Nurses, Inc.), 616 Pa. 592 (2012) (SEPTA deemed a Commonwealth party for workers’ compensation purposes, supporting immunity)
- Knox v. SEPTA, 81 A.3d 1016 (Pa.Cmwlth.2013) (Goldman not controlling for Sovereign Immunity Act; SEPTA immunity affirmed under STATUTORY framework)
- Love v. City of Philadelphia, 518 Pa. 370 (1988) (Vehicle operation requires actual motion; alighting is not operation)
- SEPTA v. Simpkins, 648 A.2d 591 (Pa.Cmwlth.1994) (Bus not personal property for purposes of the personal property exception)
- Ross v. SEPTA, 714 A.2d 1131 (Pa.Cmwlth.1998) (Context for personal property exception)