Tate v. Commonwealth
84 A.3d 762
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2014Background
- Collision on Oct. 24, 2009 at skewed intersection of State Routes 51 (six‑lane) and 168 (two‑lane) in South Beaver Township; four occupants killed, one seriously injured; plaintiff driver (Young) found 67% at fault, PennDOT 33%.
- Intersection had stop signs on Route 168 only; no signal on Route 51; posted limits 45–55 mph; PennDOT estimated Neon at 116 mph at impact.
- Over prior decade the intersection experienced ~45 accidents including fatalities; township and residents repeatedly requested PennDOT traffic study and signal; PennDOT conditioned study on township funding commitment.
- Plaintiffs sued PennDOT claiming negligent failure to install a traffic signal and failure to maintain a safe highway; trial jury found a dangerous condition and apportioned liability; trial court denied PennDOT’s summary judgment and JNOV motions.
- PennDOT appealed, arguing (1) a PennDOT regulation (67 Pa. Code § 212.5) and the Vehicle Code effectively transferred responsibility for signals to the municipality, eliminating PennDOT’s duty to install signals; and (2) the Neon’s excessive speed was a superseding, unforeseeable cause absolving PennDOT of liability.
- The court affirmed: regulation does not eliminate PennDOT’s duty to maintain highways safe; whether the intersection was a dangerous condition and whether speeding was foreseeable were for the jury.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether PennDOT owed a duty to remedy a dangerous condition at the state highway intersection | PennDOT has a nondelegateable duty to maintain state highways safe for reasonably foreseen uses; duty includes remedying dangerous conditions such as lack of a signal at a hazardous intersection | PennDOT argued regulation and Vehicle Code allow delegation of signal installation to local authorities, so it had no duty to install the signal and cannot be liable for its absence | Court held PennDOT retains duty to maintain safe highways; regulation shifting financial/responsibility for signals to municipalities does not abrogate PennDOT’s duty; factfinder decides whether a dangerous condition existed |
| Whether the driver’s excessive speed was a superseding, unforeseeable cause absolving PennDOT | Plaintiffs: speeding is foreseeable at that intersection given accident history; foreseeability is a jury question | PennDOT: Neon’s 116 mph was extraordinary and unforeseeable, superseding any other cause | Court held speed was not necessarily a superseding cause; foreseeability (given evidence of prior accidents and speeding) is a jury question; summary judgment inappropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Pyeritz v. Commonwealth, 32 A.3d 687 (Pa. 2011) (articulates elements of negligence and application to Commonwealth entities)
- Bendas v. Township of White Deer, 611 A.2d 1184 (Pa. 1992) (PennDOT owes duty to keep state highways safe; whether a condition is "dangerous" is a jury question)
- Snyder v. Harmon, 562 A.2d 307 (Pa. 1989) (interpreting 42 Pa.C.S. § 8522(b)(4) to require safety for reasonably foreseen uses)
- McCalla v. Mura, 649 A.2d 646 (Pa. 1994) (failure to remedy a dangerous condition constitutes breach of duty)
- Powell v. Drumheller, 653 A.2d 619 (Pa. 1995) (not all criminal or negligent acts are superseding causes; focus is on foreseeability)