Legal Opinion

Dean v. Com., Dept. of Transp.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided May 18, 2000No. 33 M.D. Appeal Docket 1999PublishedCited by 149 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

ZAPPALA, Justice.

We granted allocatur to determine whether the absence of a guardrail is a dangerous condition of Commonwealth realty for purposes of the real estate exception to sovereign immunity. For the reasons that follow, we hold that the failure to erect a guardrail does not constitute a dangerous condition of Commonwealth realty.1 As the real estate exception does not apply, the Commonwealth Court erred by refusing to grant summary judgment in favor of the Commonwealth.

The undisputed facts establish that on January 26, 1991, Stacey L. Dean, Appellee, was a passenger in a 1987…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Mascaro v. Youth Study CenterSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1987
  2. Mayle v. Pennsylvania Department of HighwaysSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1978
  3. Snyder v. HarmonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1989
  4. P.J.S. v. Pennsylvania State Ethics CommissionSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1999
  5. Crowell v. City of PhiladelphiaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1992

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

3Cited by149 opinions

  1. McShea v. City of PhiladelphiaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2010
  2. Hughes v. Seven Springs Farm, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2000
  3. Chepkevich v. Hidden Valley Resort, L.P.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2010
  4. David D. Chittister v. Department of Community and Economic Development David Black Larry SegalCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2000
  5. Stackhouse v. Commonwealth, Pennsylvania State PoliceCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2006

144 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