Legal Opinion · Dissent

Rothermel v. Commonwealth, Department of Transportation

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Decided March 6, 1996Published

1DissentPellegrini, Judge

I respectfully dissent. The majority opinion holds that the absence of a guardrail did not cause injuries to Maria Rothermel and Maria McArdle (decedents) but merely facilitated their injuries. I disagree that, taking the facts as alleged in the pleadings, the absence of a guardrail was not a proximate cause of the injuries and would hold that the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation (PennDOT) is not shielded from liability under the Sovereign Immunity Act, as codified in the Judicial Code at 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 8521-8528.

This case involves two young women who lost control of…

2Cases cited22 opinions

  1. Mascaro v. Youth Study CenterSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1987
  2. Snyder v. HarmonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1989
  3. Finn v. City of PhiladelphiaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1995
  4. McCracken v. Curwensville BoroughSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1932
  5. Bendas v. Township of White DeerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1992

17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API