Ruspi v. Glatz
69 A.3d 680
Pa. Super. Ct.2013Background
- Lake Wallenpau-pack is operated by PPL Holtwood under FERC license; license requires public access to lake for recreation without charge.
- June 6, 2008 night fishing collision occurred on open lake between Clerkin/Glatz boat and Pawelski boat, injuring Ruspi and Pawelski.
- Plaintiffs filed separate complaints in 2009, consolidated in 2009; claims against Glatz, Clerkin, and PPL entities.
- May 12, 2010 PPL moved for summary judgment asserting immunity under the Recreational Use of Land and Water Act (RULWA).
- Trial court granted summary judgment in 2010 finding PPL immune under RULWA; August 2011 bench trial awarded plaintiffs damages against Clerkin and Glatz; June 2012 final judgment entered; timely appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether RULWA is preempted by the Federal Power Act (FPA). | Pawelski argues federal law preempts state RULWA immunity. | Glatz/Clerkin contend FPA preempts state tort immunity in this context. | No preemption; dual system of control survives and RULWA applies. |
| Whether Lake Wallenpaupack qualifies as 'land' under RULWA. | Lake is highly developed; immunity should not apply to an urbanized area. | RULWA defines land to include water; open waters fall within immunity. | Open waters where the injury occurred fall within RULWA immunity. |
| Whether PPL’s alleged failure to warn at Party Cove voids RULWA immunity. | Willful/malicious failure to guard or warn could negate immunity. | No sufficient malice shown; immunity remains unless willful failure proven. | Willfulness not proven; immunity remains; failure-to-warn does not defeat immunity. |
Key Cases Cited
- First Iowa Hydro-Elec. Coop. v. Fed. Power Comm’n, 328 U.S. 152 (U.S. (1946)) (duality of control between state and federal regulation under FPA)
- Stone v. York Haven Power Co., 561 Pa. 189 (Pa. 2000) (Lake Frederick-like analysis; open water may be immunized; distinction from improvements)
- Livingston by Livingston v. Pennsylvania Power & Light Co., 609 F.Supp. 643 (E.D. Pa. 1985) (willfulness requires actual knowledge of a danger not obvious to entrants)
- Barr v. City & County of Philadelphia, 653 A.2d 1374 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995) (willful/malicious conduct evaluated; limited usefulness here)
- Murphy v. Duquesne Univ. of the Holy Ghost, 565 Pa. 571 (Pa. 2001) (summary-judgment standard for immunity cases; burden on non-movant)
- Commonwealth v. Preston, 904 A.2d 1 (Pa. Super. 2006) (record certification; what is not in certified record cannot be considered)