HARRISBURG – The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has ruled that the Commonwealth cannot dodge liability through the real estate exception to sovereign immunity, in cases where its negligent design and construction created a defective and dangerous condition, and later caused injury.
The Court unanimously agreed in an April 28 ruling in Wise v. Huntingdon County Housing Development Et.Al that dimly-lit areas of properties owned by the Commonwealth are an exception to sovereign immunity from litigation, and that they are in fact “dangerous property conditions.”
It reversed an opposite-minded Commonwealth Court ruling in June 2019, one which affirmed the February 2017 trial court ruling in the Huntingdon County Court of Common Pleas.
Plaintiff Sharon Wise was a tenant of the Chestnut Terrace public housing development in Mount Union and on May 9, 2013, was taking a nighttime walk with her sister on the sidewalk. Due to the darkness of the hour and an absence of visible lighting, she said she was not able to see the separation between the sidewalk and parking lot, and subsequently fell onto the parking lot asphalt.
As a result, Wise broke her ankle.
In 2015, Wise filed a lawsuit in the Huntingdon County Court of Common Pleas seeking damages for the injury, and argued that the Huntingdon County Housing Authority breached its duty to her by not having adequate outside lighting in her housing complex. Wise’s suit conceded there was a light in the vicinity, but that at the location where she fell, that same light was obscured by a large tree.
The Huntingdon County Housing Authority sought to distinguish the Wise case from these actions, however, because it argued the alleged lack of proper lighting in the instant matter was caused by natural darkness, as opposed to any negligence or neglect.
Zanic agreed and the case was dismissed, ruling that any exception to governmental immunity in real estate actions. Zanic ruled the immunity exception “must...originate in the Commonwealth reality itself” and that the Wise lawsuit did not include such an exception.
Wise appealed the case to the Commonwealth Court on the grounds that the trial court erred in its analysis, but the appellate court sided with Zanic’s ruling.
Believing the Commonwealth Court also erred in its analysis, Wise then appealed the case for the second time, to the state Supreme Court.
In the Court’s majority opinion, authored by Chief Justice Max Baer and joined by Justices Thomas G. Saylor, Debra Todd and Sallie Updyke Mundy.
Prior decisions in lower courts, both with the instant case and others, often examined the surrounding circumstances for injuries which had occurred to prior plaintiffs, such as whether lighting was natural or artificial, or whether the injuries took place inside or outside.
The Supreme Court’s decision sought to offer clarifying guidance.
“Turning to the lower courts’ decisions, we conclude that they erred in several respects. First, to the extent that the trial court and Commonwealth Court concluded that the real estate exception can apply to a claim of inadequate indoor lighting, but not a claim of inadequate outdoor lighting, they are incorrect. So long as the dangerous condition is alleged to be ‘of’ the Commonwealth real estate as required by the language of Section 8522(b)(4) and defined above, it is of no moment whether the condition is indoors or outdoors,” Baer said.
“Further, we agree with Wise that, in concluding that the real estate exception was inapplicable, the Commonwealth Court erred in its characterization and treatment of her claim. Again, in reaching its conclusion, the court opined that: (1) There was no defect of the Commonwealth realty but for the natural darkness, which was not caused by the realty; (2) Wise had not alleged that the pole light or tree were themselves defective, that the tree directly injured her, or that the realty was defective during the daytime; and (3) Wise actually claimed that the Commonwealth failed to ameliorate a natural condition, which is not encompassed by the real estate exception. Respectfully, the Court was mistaken in its reasoning.”
The Supreme Court majority reversed the order of the Commonwealth Court and remanded the matter for further proceedings consistent with its opinion, leaving Wise’s claims to be decided by a jury.
Justices Christine Donohue and David N. Wecht each authored their own concurring opinions, the latter of which was joined by Justice Kevin M. Dougherty.
“The appellant specifically argues that this distinction, between artificially created dangerous conditions that support application of the real estate exception and naturally occurring dangerous conditions that do not, should be eliminated,” Donohue said.
“Although, technically, this case can be decided without abolishing the distinction, we accepted review to resolve the confusion in the application of the real estate exception to sovereign immunity. In my view, we should eliminate the unwarranted distinction and resolve the confusion instead of perpetuating it. Thus, I concur in the result.”
As a result of the ruling, injured plaintiffs may have a clearer path to recover damages, the Commonwealth will be compelled to be more compliant in its project building and design, and the concept of sovereign immunity in cases where real property is concerned may be handled with more clarity.
A member of plaintiff counsel for Wise, Steven Barrett of Hamburg Rubin Mullin Maxwell & Lupin in Lansdale, commented on the dynamics of the ruling and elaborated on its ramifications for future such cases.
“The case to me, is momentous, because when the case was taken up by the Supreme Court…the issue that was framed was, essentially, they wanted to really take a look at all the precedent and decisional law regarding the real property exception to the Sovereign Immunity Act,” Barrett said.
“That was a good sign to us, because it looked like they were looking at this case to finally, at the Supreme Court level, make a new announcement that could have a unifying or cogent holding [on sovereign immunity] that would be conceptually easier and practically easier, in terms of applicability.”
Barrett added that lower courts can now refer to this ruling in Wise and figuratively look at the entire forest, rather than the trees, when determining whether or not there is a real property exception for sovereign immunity.
“This way, in the future, it’s going to be more workable, it’s going to be clearer and there’s not going to be as much inconsistency out there,” Barrett said.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania case 97 MAP 2019
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com