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.

TINA M. VINCE v. RINGGOLD SCHOOL DISTRICT AND SUSAN HANEY (11/08/85)

decided: November 8, 1985.

TINA M. VINCE, A MINOR, BY MARY G. VINCE, HER PARENT AND NATURAL GUARDIAN, AND PATSY W. VINCE AND MARY G. VINCE, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS
v.
RINGGOLD SCHOOL DISTRICT AND SUSAN HANEY, INDIVIDUALLY, AND SUSAN HANEY, AS AGENT, SERVANT OR EMPLOYEE OF THE RINGGOLD SCHOOL DISTRICT, APPELLEES



Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Washington County in the case of Tina M. Vince, a minor, by Mary G. Vince, her parent and natural guardian and Patsy W. Vince, and Mary G. Vince, his wife v. Ringgold School District and Susan Haney, individually and Susan Haney, agent, servant or employee of the Ringgold School District, No. 297 October Term, 1982, A.D.

COUNSEL

Raymond P. Amatangelo, for appellants.

Eileen Koepfer Narvin, for appellees.

Judges Doyle and Colins, and Senior Judge Blatt, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Colins.

Author: Colins

[ 92 Pa. Commw. Page 599]

Tina M. Vince, a minor, by Mary G. Vince, her parent and natural guardian, and Patsy W. Vince and Mary G. Vince, his wife (appellants), appeal from a per curiam order of the Court of Common Pleas of Washington County, sitting en banc, which affirmed a prior order of that Court granting the motion for summary judgment of Ringgold School District and Susan Haney (appellees). The issue presented to this Court is whether appellees are immune from liability under the provisions of what is popularly called the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act (Act), now embodied in the Judicial Code.*fn1

[ 92 Pa. Commw. Page 600]

The facts in this case are undisputed. The minor appellant was injured while attempting to move a piano with a fellow student on the premises of the appellee School District. Appellee Haney, a teacher in the School District, was in the room at the time of the accident and acting within the scope of her employment and on behalf of her employer.

A local agency is immune from damages on account of any injury to a person or property caused by an act of the local agency or any employee thereof, except as provided by the Act.*fn2 A local agency is any governmental unit other than the Commonwealth government.*fn3 There is no doubt that a school district is a local agency as defined by the Act. Auerbach v. Council Rock School District, 74 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 507, 459 A.2d 1376 (1983). Therefore, the appellees in this case are immune from liability under the provisions of the Act unless one of the Act's exceptions applies.

Appellants rely upon the waiver of immunity from liability for the negligent care of real property found in Section 8542(b)(3) of the Act which provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

(b) Acts which may impose liability. -- The following acts by a local agency or any of its employees may result in the imposition of liability on a local agency:

(3) Real property. -- The care, custody or control of real property in the possession of ...


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.