R.J. Gillingham v. County of Delaware
154 A.3d 875
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2017Background
- On Nov. 12, 2012, Gillingham tripped and fell in the Delaware County Recorder of Deeds Office after her foot became entangled in computer cables under a county computer cubicle and she stood up to walk away.
- Gillingham sued the County alleging negligent inspection and maintenance of the floor and failure to remove the computer cables; County asserted immunity under the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act (42 Pa.C.S. §§ 8541–8542).
- County filed summary judgment supported by an affidavit stating the computers/cubicles and cables were movable and not affixed to the building.
- The trial court granted summary judgment, concluding the County was immune because the injury was caused by personalty (computer cables), not real property.
- On appeal the Court applied Blocker/Repko reasoning, rejecting plaintiff’s contention that Grieff’s “care, custody or control of real property” analysis controlled.
- The Court affirmed: because the cables were not fixtures, the real property exception did not apply and the County retained immunity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §8542(b)(3) real property exception applies | Gillingham: injury resulted from negligent maintenance/care of the floor (real property) and Grieff permits recovery even when personalty is implicated | County: injury was caused by movable personalty (computer cables) not affixed to realty; Blocker/Repko preclude the exception | Held: real property exception does not apply because cables were not fixtures; County immune |
| Which analytical approach governs (Grieff vs. Blocker) | Grieff governs when negligent care/custody/control of real property causes injury; need not show a fixture | County: Blocker controls where causation turns on personalty; examine if chattel is affixed | Held: Court used Blocker/Repko analogies because injury causation traced to personalty (cables) |
| Whether an object on property can qualify as real property post-Grieff | Gillingham: objects/substances on property can fall within the exception under Grieff | County: only fixtures (affixed items) can convert personalty into real property for the exception | Held: only fixtures or items effectively part of realty qualify; mere presence of personalty does not invoke §8542(b)(3) |
| Appropriateness of summary judgment given factual disputes | Gillingham (dissent): whether negligence concerned floor vs. cables is a jury question | County: uncontroverted affidavit established cables were not affixed; no material factual dispute | Held: majority found record facts (affidavit) established cables were personalty, so summary judgment proper; dissent would remand for jury resolution |
Key Cases Cited
- Grieff v. Reisinger, 693 A.2d 195 (Pa. 1997) (real property exception applies where negligent care of property itself causes injury)
- Blocker v. City of Philadelphia, 763 A.2d 373 (Pa. 2000) (if injury is caused by personalty not affixed to realty, the real property exception does not apply)
- Repko v. Chichester School Dist., 904 A.2d 1036 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006) (apply Grieff or Blocker by analogy to which line of cases is more factually analogous)
- Sanchez-Guardiola v. City of Philadelphia, 87 A.3d 934 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014) (movable platform/objects that are not affixed are personalty; real property exception inapplicable)
- Martin by Martin v. City of Philadelphia, 696 A.2d 909 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1997) (remand where it was unclear whether pipe causing injury was ever affixed; fixture status can be dispositive)