Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

THOMAS R. WIMBISH v. SCHOOL DISTRICT PENN HILLS (06/10/81)

decided: June 10, 1981.

THOMAS R. WIMBISH, A MINOR, BY VERDELL D. WIMBISH-HALEY, HIS PARENT AND NATURAL GUARDIAN, AND VERDELL D. WIMBISH-HALEY, PARENT, APPELLANTS
v.
THE SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PENN HILLS, APPELLEE



Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County in case of Thomas R. Wimbish, a minor, by Verdell D. Wimbish-Haley, his parent and natural guardian, and Verdell D. Wimbish-Haley, parent v. The School District of Penn Hills, No. GD 79-29105.

COUNSEL

Eugene A. Lincoln, for appellants.

James A. Beinkemper, Wayman, Irvin & McAuley, for appellee.

Judges Craig, MacPhail and Palladino, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Craig.

Author: Craig

[ 59 Pa. Commw. Page 621]

Appellant Thomas R. Wimbish filed a complaint in trespass in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County against Penn Hills School District, alleging that he was seriously injured while engaged in a

[ 59 Pa. Commw. Page 622]

    school activity on the district's premises as a direct result of the negligence of the district and its employees. Appellant's negligence claim consists of averments that the district failed to employ trained personnel and to supervise its employees properly, that the district failed to promulgate and enforce staff rules for procedures to be taken when students are injured, and that the district and its employees failed to provide appellant with prompt medical attention when he was injured.*fn1

In its answer, the district denied the appellant's averments and raised as new matter the affirmative defense of immunity under the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act.*fn2

Appellant's reply to the new matter was that it was a legal conclusion to which no responsive pleading is required.

The district then filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, based on its contention that appellant's claim was barred by the act. The court granted the motion and entered judgment for the district.

Appellant, claiming that the court abused its discretion, seeks reversal of that order and a trial ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.