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.
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.
[ 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 ...