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.

JEFFREY S. ROBSON v. PENN HILLS SCHOOL DISTRICT (12/16/81)

decided: December 16, 1981.

JEFFREY S. ROBSON, A MINOR, BY EDWIN G. ROBSON AND ELIZABETH L. ROBSON, PARENTS AND NATURAL GUARDIANS AND EDWIN G. ROBSON AND ELIZABETH L. ROBSON, IN THEIR OWN RIGHT, APPELLANTS
v.
PENN HILLS SCHOOL DISTRICT, APPELLEE



Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County in the case of Jeffrey S. Robson, a minor, by Edwin G. Robson and Elizabeth L. Robson, parents and natural guardians and Edwin G. Robson and Elizabeth L. Robson, in their own right v. Penn Hills School District, No. C.D. 80-03949.

COUNSEL

Joseph M. Zoffer, Ecker, Ecker, Zoffer & Rome, for appellants.

John C. Conti, Weis & Weis, for appellee.

President Judge Crumlish, Jr. and Judges Mencer, Rogers, Blatt and Williams, Jr. Opinion by Judge Mencer.

Author: Mencer

[ 63 Pa. Commw. Page 252]

On January 23, 1980, Jeffrey Robson, aged 12 years, was injured when he was struck in his left eye by a pencil thrown by a classmate while both were in attendance at a sixth grade class at Dible Grade School in Penn Hills School District. At the time of Jeffrey's eye injury, the teacher had left the classroom, and the class was unsupervised.

The parents of Jeffrey Robson (appellants), on his behalf and in their own right, filed suit in trespass against the School District, which thereafter made a motion for summary judgment seeking the dismissal of the complaint. The Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County granted the School District's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint, on the basis that the conduct of the School District complained of in the complaint did not come within the ambit of Section 202(b)(3) of the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act (Act)*fn1 and that the constitutional arguments raised by the plaintiffs were either without merit or were not ripe for consideration. This appeal followed and we affirm.

The appellants assert that the alleged negligent conduct of the School District was directly related to the care, custody, and control of real property,*fn2 one

[ 63 Pa. Commw. Page 253]

    of the specific exceptions to governmental immunity enumerated in the Act. In Section 202(b)(3), the Act provided:

Section 202. Exceptions to governmental immunity.

(b) Actions or activities which may impose liability. -- The following acts or activities by a political subdivision or any of its employees may result in the imposition of liability on a political subdivision:

(3) The care, custody or control of real property in the possession of the political subdivision, except that the political subdivision shall not be liable for damages on account of any injury sustained by a person intentionally trespassing on real property in the possession of the political subdivision. As used in this paragraph, "real property" shall not include trees, streets, sidewalks, traffic signs, lights and other traffic controls, street lights and street lighting systems and ...


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.