S. Brewington v. City of Philadelphia and Walter G. Smith Elementary School -- Appeal of: S. Brewington and J. Brewington
2016 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 478
Pa. Commw. Ct.2016Background
- Nine-year-old Jarrett Brewington was injured in May 2012 during gym class when he ran into an unprotected concrete gym wall and suffered a concussion.
- Plaintiff sued the school and School District alleging the gym’s design/condition (unprotected concrete walls; lack of safety measures) was defective and that defendants were negligent in care, custody, and control of the premises.
- Defendants raised governmental immunity under the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act and moved for summary judgment, arguing the real property exception did not apply because the claimed lack of mats involves personalty.
- The trial court granted summary judgment, relying on Rieger v. Altoona Area School District to treat safety mats (personalty) as dispositive.
- On appeal, the Commonwealth Court examined whether the injury was caused by a dangerous condition of real property (the unprotected wall/gym design) and whether Rieger was correctly applied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the real property exception to governmental immunity (42 Pa.C.S. §8542(b)(3)) applies | Brewington: injury caused by unsafe condition of gym realty (unprotected concrete wall / gym design); remedy options (e.g., mats) irrelevant | Defendants: claim concerns failure to provide mats, which are personalty, so real property exception does not apply | Court: Held real property exception may apply because injury stemmed from the condition/design of the gym (realty); remanded for factual determination |
| Whether Rieger precludes real-property-based claims when the alleged remedy would be personalty | Brewington: Rieger misinterprets Singer; focus is on cause (realty condition), not on chattel that could prevent injury | Defendants: Rieger requires dismissal where the asserted protective measure is personalty (mats) | Court: Overruled Rieger as misinterpretation; reaffirmed Singer — plaintiffs can plead that a dangerous condition of real property caused injury even if remedies might involve personalty |
| Whether characterization of claims as “comingled” (realty vs. personalty) warranted summary judgment | Brewington: allegations specifically state dangerous condition of the gym (real property) and negligent design/construction | Defendants: claims are intermixed and effectively allege failure to provide mats (personalty) | Court: Trial court erred in characterizing claims as comingled; question whether negligence caused injury is factual for jury |
| Whether the question whether defendant’s negligence caused injury is for the court at summary judgment | Brewington: causation is factual issue for jury | Defendants: argued as basis for summary judgment via immunity | Court: Affirmed causation is a jury question; reversed grant of summary judgment and remanded |
Key Cases Cited
- Rieger v. Altoona Area Sch. Dist., 768 A.2d 912 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (defense relying on mats-as-personalty reasoning; court here overrules Rieger as misinterpretation)
- Grieff v. Reisinger, 693 A.2d 195 (Pa.) (real property exception applies where negligent care of realty caused injury)
- Blocker v. City of Philadelphia, 763 A.2d 373 (Pa.) (chattel not affixed to realty remains personalty; attachment is prerequisite before considering intent)
- Singer v. Sch. Dist. of Philadelphia, 513 A.2d 1108 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (real property exception applied where inadequate matting was an aspect of the gymnasium landing surface within care/custody/control)
- Bradley v. Franklin Cnty. Prison, 674 A.2d 363 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (defective design/construction of shower floor without non-slip surface fell within real property exception)
- Gump v. Chartiers-Houston Sch. Dist., 558 A.2d 589 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (school hallway unsafe for intended use; allegations fit within real property exception)