Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Pennsylvania State Police v. Klimek

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Decided January 5, 2004Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

CONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINION BY

SENIOR JUDGE KELLEY.

In regards to the majority’s holding that the Klimeks’ complaint does not fall within the personal property exception to sovereign immunity articulated in Section 8522(b)(3) of the Judicial Code,11 respectfully dissent.

The exception of Section 8522(b)(3), by its express terms, applies to the personal property of persons that is held within the “cai'e, custody or control” of a commonwealth agency. It is beyond dispute that the shoelaces in question were the personal property of the Deceased held by the Pennsylvania State Police pursuant…

2Cases cited5 opinions

Dean v. Com., Dept. of Transp.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2000
Commonwealth, Department of Public Welfare, Farview State Hospital v. KallingerCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1990
Bufford v. Pa. Dept. of TransportationCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1996
Commonwealth v. KallingerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1992
DEPT. OF ENVIRON. RESOURCES v. MyersCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1990