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.

TODD ALEXANDER GUMP v. CHARTIERS-HOUSTON SCHOOL DISTRICT (05/05/89)

decided: May 5, 1989.

TODD ALEXANDER GUMP, A MINOR, BY HIS PARENTS AND NATURAL GUARDIANS, ALEXANDER F. GUMP, AND CAROL L. GUMP, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS
v.
CHARTIERS-HOUSTON SCHOOL DISTRICT, TIMOTHY MOUSETIS, AND FRANK ROTUNDA, APPELLEES



Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Washington County, in the case of Todd Alexander Gump, a minor, by his parents and natural guardians, Alexander F. Gump and Carol L. Gump, his wife v. Chartiers-Houston School District, Timothy Mousetis and Frank Rotunda, No. 387 of 1986.

COUNSEL

Stephen A. Zappalla, Jr., Dattilo, Barry, Fasulo & Cambest, for appellants.

Phillip J. Binotto, Jr., Binotto, Sweat & Johnson, for appellees.

Judges Colins and McGinley, and Senior Judge Kalish, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge McGinley. Judge Barry did not participate in the decision in this case.

Author: Mcginley

[ 125 Pa. Commw. Page 597]

Todd Alexander Gump, a minor, and his parents Alexander F. Gump and Carol L. Gump (Appellants) appeal an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Washington County (trial court) granting summary judgment to Chartiers-Houston School District (Appellee).

[ 125 Pa. Commw. Page 598]

On February 23, 1985, Todd Alexander Gump (Todd) a member of the Chartiers-Houston High School's wrestling team, was injured while sprinting in a running drill conducted in the hallway of the high school. As he reached the end of the hallway Todd failed to negotiate a left hand turn and unintentionally pushed his hand through the window pane of a hallway door. Todd suffered multiple lacerations of the right hand and arm requiring medical treatment.

The Appellants allege in their complaint*fn1 that Todd's injuries were the result of a defect in the realty.*fn2 Appellants specifically allege that a defect of the door window caused the injury.*fn3 The Appellants also allege that the

[ 125 Pa. Commw. Page 599]

    defect could have been corrected by the installation of safety glass or other types of protective devices.*fn4

The Appellee raised the affirmative defense of governmental immunity in its preliminary objections. The Appellants filed preliminary objections in the nature of a Motion to Strike for lack of conformity to law or rule of court*fn5 and a response to Appellee's preliminary objections. The trial court sustained Appellants' preliminary objections and dismissed Appellee's preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer. Appellee filed an Answer and New Matter raising the defense of governmental immunity. Appellants ...


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.