T. Washington v. Commonwealth of PA and City of Philadelphia T. Washington v. PennDOT ~ Appeal of: T. Washington
359 C.D. 2017
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Nov 14, 2017Background
- On September 28, 2015, Warrington fell while exiting a SEPTA bus on Belmont Avenue after stepping into a deep hole in the roadway; she alleged severe injury.
- Plaintiff sued Commonwealth (PennDOT) asserting negligence based on the roadway defect; City was dismissed and only PennDOT remained.
- Plaintiff argued the exposed brick at the bottom of the hole was a separate, man-made dangerous condition falling under the "real estate" exception to sovereign immunity (42 Pa.C.S. § 8522(b)(4)).
- PennDOT moved for summary judgment arguing the condition was a pothole (natural-element-derived) subject to the "pothole" exception, which requires actual prior written notice (42 Pa.C.S. § 8522(b)(5)); Plaintiff produced no such written notice.
- The trial court held the exposed brick was part of the pothole and granted summary judgment for PennDOT for failure to prove actual written notice; the Commonwealth Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether exposed brick is a separate "real estate" dangerous condition under § 8522(b)(4) or part of a pothole under § 8522(b)(5) | Warrington: exposed brick is man-made and thus a distinct hazard covered by the real estate exception (no written-notice requirement) | PennDOT: the brick was exposed only because of a naturally created pothole, so the condition falls under the pothole exception requiring actual written notice | Held: Exposed brick is a condition created by the pothole and falls within § 8522(b)(5); real estate exception does not apply |
| Whether summary judgment was proper given absence of actual prior written notice required by § 8522(b)(5) | Warrington: constructive notice sufficed because the exposed brick was a man-made hazard | PennDOT: plaintiff failed to plead or prove actual written notice; hence no waiver of sovereign immunity | Held: Summary judgment affirmed—plaintiff did not show actual prior written notice, so sovereign immunity bars the claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Stevens v. Department of Transportation, 492 A.2d 490 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1985) (establishes requirement to plead and prove actual prior written notice for pothole claims)
- Cressman v. Department of Transportation, 538 A.2d 992 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1988) (defines "potholes" as roadway holes from deterioration by water, freeze-thaw, and traffic)
- Clark v. Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, 962 A.2d 692 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008) (exceptions to sovereign immunity must be narrowly construed)
- Lacava v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, 157 A.3d 1003 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2017) (exposed trolley track was treated as a condition derived from a pothole, not a separate realty danger)
- Page v. City of Philadelphia, 25 A.3d 471 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011) (describes strict limits on waivers of sovereign immunity)
- Manley v. Fitzgerald, 997 A.2d 1235 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (standard of review for summary judgment)