S. Dacey v. Luzerne County, PA
156 C.D. 2016
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Dec 6, 2016Background
- On November 15, 2013, Sharon Dacey tripped on a large crack in a county-controlled parking lot after visiting the VA office and fractured her finger, requiring surgery.
- Dacey (a New Jersey resident) notified Luzerne County of the claim by letter on October 28, 2014 — more than six months after the November 15, 2013 incident.
- Dacey filed a negligence complaint on February 23, 2015 alleging the County failed to inspect or remedy a dangerous condition in the lot.
- The County filed preliminary objections seeking dismissal under 42 Pa.C.S. § 5522 for failure to provide the required six-month notice.
- The trial court granted the County’s preliminary objections and dismissed the complaint as untimely, finding the late notice prejudiced the County.
- The Commonwealth Court reversed, holding that Dacey’s ignorance of the six‑month notice requirement could constitute a reasonable excuse and that the County failed to show specific undue prejudice from the delayed notice; the case was remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Dacey's late notice can be excused under 42 Pa.C.S. § 5522 as a "reasonable excuse" | Dacey argued her ignorance of the six‑month notice requirement (she is a NJ resident) is a reasonable excuse that warrants relief | County argued notice was untimely and dismissal is required absent timely statutory notice | Court held ignorance may be a reasonable excuse; relief under § 5522 is available and dismissal was improper without assessing prejudice concretely |
| Whether the County suffered undue hardship from the delayed notice so as to bar relief | Dacey argued the County presented only conclusory claims of prejudice and no specific facts showing undue hardship | County pointed to employee turnover and asserted it would be prejudiced in investigating/defending the claim | Court held the County failed to identify specific prejudice; conclusory assertions insufficient, so failure to timely notify did not warrant dismissal on the record presented |
Key Cases Cited
- Thomas v. City of Philadelphia, 861 A.2d 1023 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004) (balancing reason for delay against prejudice under § 5522)
- Yurechko v. Allegheny County, 243 A.2d 372 (Pa. 1968) (ignorance of claimant/counsel coupled with no undue hardship satisfies "reasonable excuse")
- Leedom v. Dep’t of Transp., 699 A.2d 815 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1997) (same principle regarding reasonable excuse under § 5522)
- Bissey v. Dep't of Transp., 613 A.2d 37 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1992) (defendant must show specific facts of undue hardship; conclusory claims insufficient)