Legal Opinion

Lockwood v. City of Pittsburgh

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided May 18, 2000No. 26 W.D. Appeal Docket 1999PublishedCited by 47 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

ZAPPALA, Justice.

We must determine whether a claim alleging that the City of Pittsburgh was negligent in failing to install a guardrail along a curve in the road where an accident occurred falls within the streets exception to governmental immunity set forth in the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act, 42 Pa.C.S. § 8542(b)(6). In Dean v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation, 561 Pa. 503, 751 A.2d 1130 (2000) also decided today, we held that the failure to erect a guardrail is not a “dangerous condition of Commonwealth realty” for purposes of the real estate…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Moure v. RaeuchleSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1992
  2. Dean v. Com., Dept. of Transp.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2000
  3. Crowell v. City of PhiladelphiaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1992
  4. KILEY BY KILEY v. City of PhiladelphiaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1994
  5. Kilgore v. City of PhiladelphiaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1998

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

3Cited by47 opinions

  1. Dean v. Com., Dept. of Transp.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2000
  2. Walker v. ElebySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2004
  3. Dooner v. DiDonatoSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2009
  4. Reott v. Asia Trend, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2010
  5. Lindstrom v. City of CorrySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2000

42 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