*1 Appellant, City Dillon, York School District. 1966. C. MUS- Argued Before May 25, J., Bell, O’Brien manno, Jones, Cohen, Eagen, Roberts, JJ. Mm & with Jr., Dell’Alba, II. Galley
John Gailey, for appellants. Gilbert, him with Stuart M. E. Gribbin, Jr., Neely,
Leo appellee. Gribbin, Stetler é
Opinion
Mr. Justice
1966:
June
Jones,
February
crossing
On
while
over
one
27, 1962,
building
High
of the William Penn Sеnior
School1
*2
to
L.
another
order
attend her next
Donna
class,
slipped
plaintiff,
the minor
fell while
and
Dillon,
descending flight
steps.2
eight
of
concrete
Suit was
brought against
City
[School
York
School District
employees
damаges arising
for
and four of its
District]
injuries
plaintiff’s resulting
minor
from
which were
allegedly
to the
of
that had
due
accumulation
ice
be-
complaint
steps.
glazed
ridged
The
on the
come
and
charged
School
that the
District
or should have
knew
plain-
dangerous
condition before minor
known
and
under
tiff fell
therefore was
the doctrine
liable,
respondeat
steps
superior,
failing
maintain
plain-
failing
minor
in a safe condition and
to warn the
existing.
condition then
tiff
the hazardous
objections
preliminary
The School District filed
complaint
nature
demurrer to the
based on
of a
its
immunity
liability for
assertion of
from
torts com-
scope
employees acting
its
within
mitted
its
legitimate gоvernmental functions.3 On November County
of York
the Court Common Pleas
sus-
preliminary objections
tained the School District’s
and
judgment in favor of the School District
entered
plaintiffs
plaintiffs.
against
judgment,
From that
appealed to this Court.
have
Pittsburgh School
In
408 Pa.
District,
Shields
Supler
(1962),
Frank
v. North
184
240
Township
lin
182
District,
School
A. 2d
operated by
High
the York
School
Penn Senior
William
City
District.
School
steps
high
eight
which were a total of six feet
concrete
2 The
exposed
сompletely
elements.
to the
were
injury
alleged
from the
arises
concede
Plaintiffs
properly
perform
School District
failure
function,
we
(1962),
recently re-affirmed the doctrine of a
school district’s immunity from suit for the negligence
.
of its officers and employees while
engaged
govern
mental
functions.
See also
Supler
cases cited in
at
658.
Shields and Supler
Thus,
would control
this ap
peal
accept
unless we
plaintiffs’ pleа to overrule the
line
Supler
cases which Shields and
represent.
presented
Plaintiffs have
recent decisions in other
jurisdictions where courts have abolished municipal
corporations’ and school districts’
immunity
tort
liability.
Hargrove
See
v. Town
Cocoa
e.g.,
Beach,
N.W. (1962) ; 795 Haney City 386 Lexington, of S.W. 2d 738 are to (Ky. 1964). We now ashed follow these decisions.
Even the of though municipal dоctrine immunity from tort imposed judicial was de liability initially by 2 Russell v. Men T.R. cision, Devon, 100 667, Eng. 359 we are reluctant to Rep. abolish doc (1788),4 In Morris v. Town trine fiat. Mt. Lebanon by judicial 144 School Pa. A. 2d 737 ship District, 633, (1958), 393 stated: “. . . Mr. Justice Cohen the solution in tort problem responsibility too government permit to and partial an the complex undertaking plaintiff reform which the seeks. piecemeal judicial comprehensive a program by legisla Establishment the Commonwealth and to all of to applicable tion needed to deal effectively with sorely sub-divisions is conduct of out of the arising governmental tort claims 636). years at Four Pa. (393 635, later, activities.” country brought 4 into this Devon first was Men The rule of Leicester, Mass. 247 by v. Inhabitants 9 case Mower 106 thoughts in
Mr. Chief Justice reiterated these Bell Supler Township North Franklin School “If it is be the 182 A. 537: to 2d 657, 660, policy any or of its law that the Commonwealth political any or are instrumentalities subdivisions subject by for their the torts committed engaged employees officers or while Legis change by should be made functions, lature and Courts.” See also Mr. Justice opinion concurring requesting legislature Cohen’s governmental im to undertake full scale a review Pennsylvania, munity in Morrison, Stouffer A. Pa. 2d though originating govern the reasons Even immunity are Common anachronistic, mental now may more to sustain the rule for wealth wish other, Only legislature can deal with reasons. modern, municipal immunity in cor the field of all of its state, aspects porations by enacting district school hearings comprehensive in based on extensive bill vestigation. con On the other we continue to be hand, prоblem fragmented on the most fronted with the district) Gray (school with bar Cf. the at basis. case (1966) (mu Pa. Heard, sneckv. corporations). nicipal Supreme
Recently, Court faced of Iowa was Boyer problem High School v. Iowa the same with (1964) that con Association, Athletic N.W. *4 today. extensively reviewing After this Court fronts judicially has overthrown doc law which the case especially immunity, governmental Molitor of trine Commumty Unit 18 Ill. District, 2d 11, Kaneland Spanel (1959) View 2d 89 Mounds Sсhool N.E. 118 N.W. 2d 279, 264 Minn. District, legislative Boyer action that court decided was still satisfactory solution: “As above indicated, the more any political or state of sub not or whether governmental agencies or divisions are to bе immune liability largely public from for torts is a matter of policy. legislature, ordinarily The not the de courts, public policy termines the of the are state. . . . We fully away aware the trend im from munity. problems . legisla . . Consideration of the judicial abrogation tive vs. including rule, precedents plaintiff cites to leaves us, us satisfied the policy preferred we have announced is the one. . . . The conclusion reached such re-examination is, from аbrogation as stated, that the doctrine should come legislative, (127 judicial, not action.” N.W. 613). (Emphasis added). at 612, Weis See also: ner v. Board Education Montgomery County, 237 (1965). Md. 206 A. 2d Finally, plaintiffs argue that the School District immunity waived its liability by purchase tort emp liability protecting insurance itself and not its loyees.5 rejected Supler We this contention Township North Franklin School 407 Pa. (1962). A. 659, 660, The insurance policy protects possible liability School District for engaging proprietary incurred while functions. Judgment affirmed.
Concurring Opinion by Eagen: Mr. Justice I join in the excellent opinion of Brother Jones, but am add constrained to the following comment due to the presents. factual situation this сase It the averment insur follows from Sutler complaint coverage prejudicial in the is irrelevant and as ance argued. coverage has Insurance the School District is material immunity. possibility only it bears on of waivеr of because here general way rule that violates the averment in no This coverage prejudicial immaterial an insurance defendant’s injuries. Merloe, personal Trimble v. action 2d 457 *5 legis constitutionally
A and district is both school latively arm itself. See, an Commonwealth Pennsylvania and the Art. X, Constitution §1, §1 seq., amended, as P. L. et Act March seq. (Supp. 1965). de §1-101 et As P.S. such, sovereign by im fendant school is shielded district munity as as the doctrine well Commonwealth, governmental immunity. For this Court to decree longer itself is no immune that the Commonwealth liability might an encroach well constitute tort upon prerogatives Assembly, ment the General Separation and as such violative Powers government. inherent in our form of Doctrine See, Wilson v. Phila. School A. Dist., 225, 195 Bailey and Pa. Waters,
Dissenting Opinion : Mr. Musmanno Justice Opinion Majority magnifies I believe that the unnecessarily complex the case. It issue makes trespass myriads. simply of which there are action, is I whether the are we should decide defendants believe just justice, a matter of as, liable as law Flagiello decided whether a charitable institu- we case, agents. for the torts of tion liable is longer day come when this Court can no will The question escape answering as whether school in tort under such are liable circumstances as districts litigation. hope in this It is a vain those announced government accept other branch of will that some strictly judiciary. that of the is In- which the task improper hope say indulge an it is I would deed, in, Legislature take responsibility will over a in the courts. resides which guide adequate law on the books to There us оn rendering founded the natural and a decision eternal principles justice. postponing I no see reason the inevitable. *6 today by reversing
I would decide this case complaint. lower court’s dismissal Dissenting by Opinion Me. Justice Roberts: оpinion majority As the makes clear, the issue which today deciding the Court is is not the merits governmental immunity. doctrine of That doctrine has thoroughly longer been discredited and no is able to allegiance given claim the of thоse who have serious problem. e.g., consideration to the See, Borchard, Liability (1924); Government in Yale 1 34 L.J. Tort, Municipal (1926); 36 Yale 1L.J. Casner Fuller, Liability Operation, Tort 54 Harv. L. Rev. 437 (1941) Liability ; Leflar and Tort Kantrowitz, (1954); 29 L. States, N.Y.U. Rev. Munici 1363 Smith, pal Liability, (1949) Repko, Tort 48 Mich. 41 L. ; Rev. Legal Commentary
American Mu on the Doctrine of nicipal Contemp. Liability, Tort 9 & 214 Law Prob. (1942) Muskopf Corning Hosp. ; 55 Cal. 2d Dist., (1961); Hargrove 359 P. 457 Cocoa v. Town 211, 1957); (Fla. Beach, 96 2d 130 Molitor v. Kaneland So. Community Unit 18 Ill. 2d Dist., 163 N.E. 2d 11, cert, (1959); Haney 80 denied, 362 U.S. S. Ct. 955 Lexington, (Ky. 1964); 386 S.W. 738 Williams v. (1961) Spanel 111 Mich. N.W. 2d 1 Detroit, ; 364 v. Mounds View School Minn. (1962). 2d 795
N.W. for The issue decision, is therefore, whether imposed1 immunity, doctrine and con- 2 by unrespon- court decision but now felt to tinued be abrogated judi- by should modern conditions, sive to Stouffer Fox v. Northern Morrison, Liberties, Pa. 3 W. & S. 103 162 A. 2d (1960), cited therein. eases properly or
cial action retained as a matter to be more by Legislature. dealt with against I am court ac of the considerations aware tion in and I do find them be without this area, long no my Court should this merit. view, However, past responsibility direct er avoid decisions injured negligence ing a those as the result municipality, Graysneck v. school district or see Legis A. 2d 893 Heard, laturе. exists a situation
There Commonwealth legislative unconducive to which is review of the doc- enjoy protection those interests which trine, since quite governmental immunity natural- oppose legislative ly It consideratiоn of the area. *7 brought Court which have decisions about this and it should be decision this Court situation, is corrected. that the situation Once we withdraw Legislature ample oppor- from the will have area, problem tunity study devotе to the which it well experience been has This, fact, deserves. up jurisdictions whose courts to the other have faced they good disavowing longer, no a rule which task justify on could its merits.3 conscience, recently was confronted Court with an anal This concerning ogous chari tort of situation Flagiello Pennsylvania organizations. Hos table pital, 2d 193 I Pa. believe properly was resolved in issue that case, that the to adhere to the view I which I continue there ex perpetuate pressed: rules need for “Unwise saying Brandéis was fond of Mr. Justice no ever. correctly. until it was ever settled settled was case arrogance rectifying involved in more no There §22.3; §301.1; Ill. e.g., Ann. Stat. See, Code ch. Civ. Cal. 122, §§825, 105, §12.1-1; ch. §3(a); 829. 1/2, ch. ch. 57
Ill
making
original
mistake than in
it in the
instance.
I
cannot believe that tbe common law
which
tradition,
has served ns so
illuminating ability
well because of its
adapt
and re-examine
pоlicy
demands a
itself,
of un
yielding
thoroughly
prin
adherence to a
discredited
ciple.” Flagiello
Pennsylvania Hospital, supra,
at
Accordingly, I dissent.
Graysneck, Appellant, Heard. Argued 1966. Before Musmanno, March Jones, O’Brien and Roberts, JJ. Cohen, Eagen, *8 Franldyn E. Gonflenti, Thomas Lazaroff appellant. Gauley, Glarlce, & Birsic them with