101 A.3d 144
Pa. Commw. Ct.2014Background
- On Dec. 20, 2008, Evelyn Taylor attended a school band concert and fell while stepping through a partially opened accordion-style gym partition door, sustaining facial injuries and broken teeth.
- The partition’s bottom projected about one foot into the doorway, requiring patrons to step over it; no warning signs were present.
- Taylor sued Northeast Bradford School District for negligence, invoking the Tort Claims Act real property exception to governmental immunity.
- The District moved for summary judgment arguing the partition was personalty (not realty) and thus outside the real property exception.
- The trial court granted summary judgment, relying on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s classification test from Blocker II and concluding the partition fell into the removable chattel category and was personalty as a matter of law.
- The appellate court reversed and remanded, holding that whether the partition is a fixture or personalty is a legal question but that material factual issues (how it was attached, removability, and intent) precluded resolution on summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the partition is realty (fixture) or personalty | Taylor: partition and door were permanently fixed and constitute real property (fixture) — question for jury | District: under Blocker II the partition is personalty and not part of realty | Court: classification is a question of law, but material factual disputes about attachment, removability, and intent preclude deciding it on summary judgment; reverse and remand |
| Whether the allegedly dangerous condition (high step) is a jury question | Taylor: existence of a dangerous condition and need for warning are factual issues for jury | District: immunity applies if condition stems from personalty; thus no liability | Court: dangerous-condition question remains for jury if condition is of realty; trial court did not reach it because it (improperly) decided classification first |
Key Cases Cited
- Blocker v. City of Philadelphia, 563 Pa. 559, 763 A.2d 373 (Pa. 2000) (Supreme Court clarifying that unattached chattels are personalty and limiting inquiry into intent to chattels physically unattached)
- Blocker v. City of Philadelphia, 729 A.2d 187 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1999) (Cmwlth. decision addressing fixture factors later reversed by the Supreme Court)
- Bioni v. Canon–McMillan School District, 521 Pa. 299, 555 A.2d 901 (Pa. 1989) (Supreme Court held fixture/personalty is a legal question for the court)
- LoFurno v. Garnet Valley School District, 904 A.2d 980 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006) (bolting alone insufficient to establish fixture without evidence on removability and intent)
- Mellon v. City of Pittsburgh Zoo, 760 A.2d 921 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000) (to invoke real property exception, injury must stem from a dangerous condition of real property)
- Clayton v. Lienhard, 812 Pa. 433, 167 A. 321 (Pa. 1933) (classic three-category test for classifying chattels as personalty or realty)