According to the Opinion, the Plaintiffs filed a negligence Complaint after the Plaintiff’s decedent was struck and killed by a vehicle driven on a pathway in a park. According to the Opinion, the driver of the vehicle purposely drove his truck off of a roadway and into a park. The road in question ended at a small, paved parking area and then narrowed significantly into a paved asphalt pathway leading to a pavilion and baseball fields.
It was additionally noted that the roadway had “No Outlet” and “No Parking This Side of the Street” signs in the area.
The accident occurred just after the end of the pathway and past the pavilion.
The Plaintiff’s Complaint invoked the Real Property, Utility Service, Streets, and Sidewalks Exceptions to governmental immunity afforded under the Act. Earlier in the litigation, the Real Property and Utility Service Exceptions theories of liability were stricken but the Streets and the Sidewalk theories were allowed to proceed.
On appeal, the appellate court addressed the issue of whether the paved pathway within the park could meet the definition of a street under the Streets Exception.
In part, the court noted that the pathway was significantly narrower than the roadway that led to it. No evidence was presented by the Plaintiff that the pathway was wider than an alley or lane.
There was additionally no evidence that the pathway afforded an exit at each end of the pathway It was noted that the pathway ended just beyond the pavilion in the park.
Nor was any evidence presented that the pathway was used for travel as a street or that the pathway connected one street to another. Also, no evidence was presented by the Plaintiff to show that the pathway had been legally laid out or opened as a street.
The court otherwise noted that borough ordinances prohibited vehicular traffic in parks without permission.
The court otherwise noted that borough ordinances prohibited vehicular traffic in parks without permission.
Other testimony showed that the pathway’s primary purpose was for use by employees of the borough and for short-term vehicle loading and unloading by youth clubs. As such, the court noted that the pathway was more akin to a driveway.
After a review of the facts against the applicable law, the Commonwealth Court held that, because the Plaintiffs had failed to establish that the pathway was a street, the court further held that the concrete base around the pavilion could not be deemed to be a sidewalk “within the rights-of-way of streets owned by the local agency” under 42 Pa. C.S.A. §8542(b)(7).
After a review of the facts against the applicable law, the Commonwealth Court held that, because the Plaintiffs had failed to establish that the pathway was a street, the court further held that the concrete base around the pavilion could not be deemed to be a sidewalk “within the rights-of-way of streets owned by the local agency” under 42 Pa. C.S.A. §8542(b)(7).
Accordingly, the appellate court reversed the portions of the trial court Order denying summary judgment relative to the applicability of the Streets and Sidewalk Exceptions to governmental immunity.
Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.
Source: The Legal Intelligencer State Appellate Case Alert, www.Law.com (Jul 7, 2026).
Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.
Source: The Legal Intelligencer State Appellate Case Alert, www.Law.com (Jul 7, 2026).
Source of image: Photo by Azgan Mjeshtri on www.unsplash.com.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.