A Dead End: Paved Pathway in Park is Not a Street Under the Streets Exception to Governmental Immunity

In the case of Gabra v. Borough of Prospect Park, No. 1343 C.D. 2024 (Pa. Cmwlth. June 18, 2026 Covey, J., Tsia, J., and Leavitt, S.J.) (Op. by Covey, J.), the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court addressed the issue of whether a pathway in a park fell within the Streets Exception to governmental immunity under the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act.

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. 

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). 

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).

Source of image:  Photo by Azgan Mjeshtri on www.unsplash.com.

Municipality Secures Summary Judgment Under PSTCA in Trip and Fall Case

In the case of Reaves v. Akken, No. 180404796, No. 2244 EDA 2019 (C.P. Phila. Co. Dec. 16, 2019 Butchart, J.), the court granted the City of Philadelphia’s Motion for Summary Judgment in a trip and fall case.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff fell while she was walking on a handicap ramp. The Plaintiff claimed that her fall was caused by a dangerous or defective condition of the sidewalk. The street near where the ramp was located was designated as a state highway.

The owners of the abutting property had reached a settlement and entered into a Release with the Plaintiff.

The remaining Defendant, the City of Philadelphia, moved for summary judgment.

The court noted that the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act generally granted immunity to municipalities for negligence. However, an injured party is able to overcome this immunity if one of the exceptions under 42 Pa.C.S.A. §8542 applied. The court in this case noted that the appellate courts of Pennsylvania have narrowly construed the exceptions.

In this matter, the Plaintiff was attempting to rely upon the sidewalks exception and the streets exception, neither of which the court found applicable to allow the case to proceed.

The court also noted that, where there is abutting owner at issue, the municipality can only be secondarily liable.

The court also noted that, in this case, the release of the primarily liable party extinguished any claim against the secondarily liable party. Because the Plaintiff had settled the claims with the abutting property owners, i.e., the parties who were primarily liable, the claims against the city, which was only secondarily liable, were found to be extinguished.

The court also found the street exception inapplicable given that the nearby street was owned by the state and not the municipality at issue.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.

Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Jan. 28, 2020).