Finkelstein v. Shippensburg State College

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Finkelstein v. Shippensburg State College

370 A.2d 1259, 29 Pa. Commw. 373, 1977 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 770

CourtCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedMarch 23, 1977

DocketNo. 1092 C.D. 1976

StatusPublished

Cited by11 cases

This text of 370 A.2d 1259 (Finkelstein v. Shippensburg State College) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Finkelstein v. Shippensburg State College, 370 A.2d 1259, 29 Pa. Commw. 373, 1977 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 770 (Pa. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam

Opinion and Order,

Tbis action in trespass was filed within tbe original jurisdiction of tbis Court. It was brought by Leonard and Leila Finkelstein (plaintiffs) against Sbippensburg State College (Sbippensburg). Tbe complaint alleges that plaintiff, Leonard Finkelstein, a business invitee of Sbippensburg, sustained various injuries in a fall into an unligbted, unmarked culvert located on Sbippensburg’s grounds. In addition to its other preliminary objections, Sbippensburg raises tbe bar of sovereign.immunity to plaintiffs’ causes of action. We sustain tbis objection.

Tbe doctrine of sovereign immunity provides that tbe Commonwealth, or an instrumentality or agency of tbe Commonwealth, cannot be sued without express legislative consent. Pa. Const, art. I, §11, Biello v. Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board, 454 Pa. 179, 183, 301 A.2d 849, 851 (1973). Sbippensburg is a state agency, owned and operated by tbe Commonwealth.¹ Tbis Court has held in prior decisions that similar state colleges are cloaked with sovereign immunity. Brungard v. Hartman, 12 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 477, [375]*375315 A.2d 913 (1974). As there is no express legislation which allows Shippensburg to be sued in trespass, we hold that the bar of sovereign immunity is available to Shippensburg in this action.

Plaintiffs argue that sovereign immunity is not available in this instance because Shippensburg was not operating in a government function. Plaintiffs in this argument rely upon language found in Biello v. Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board, supra. This Court does not read Biello as holding that this State’s sovereign immunity is subject to the distinction between governmental and proprietary functions. This doctrine is in fact constitutionally mandated and as previously stated can only be altered by legislation. See Poklemba v. Shamokin Hospital, 21 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 301, 304, n. 2, 344 A.2d 732, 734, n. 2 (1975). See also Brown v. Commonwealth, 453 Pa. 566, 574, n. 1, 305 A.2d 868, 873, n. 1 (1973) (Pomeroy, J. concurring). We sustain Shippensburg’s preliminary objections based upon sovereign immunity and dismiss the complaint.

Order

And Now, this 23rd day of March, 1977, the preliminary objection of defendant Shippensburg State College is sustained, and the complaint against Shippensburg State College is dismissed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam

Opinion and Order,

Tbis action in trespass was filed within tbe original jurisdiction of tbis Court. It was brought by Leonard and Leila Finkelstein (plaintiffs) against Sbippensburg State College (Sbippensburg). Tbe complaint alleges that plaintiff, Leonard Finkelstein, a business invitee of Sbippensburg, sustained various injuries in a fall into an unligbted, unmarked culvert located on Sbippensburg’s grounds. In addition to its other preliminary objections, Sbippensburg raises tbe bar of sovereign.immunity to plaintiffs’ causes of action. We sustain tbis objection.

Tbe doctrine of sovereign immunity provides that tbe Commonwealth, or an instrumentality or agency of tbe Commonwealth, cannot be sued without express legislative consent. Pa. Const, art. I, §11, Biello v. Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board, 454 Pa. 179, 183, 301 A.2d 849, 851 (1973). Sbippensburg is a state agency, owned and operated by tbe Commonwealth.¹ Tbis Court has held in prior decisions that similar state colleges are cloaked with sovereign immunity. Brungard v. Hartman, 12 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 477, [375]*375315 A.2d 913 (1974). As there is no express legislation which allows Shippensburg to be sued in trespass, we hold that the bar of sovereign immunity is available to Shippensburg in this action.

Plaintiffs argue that sovereign immunity is not available in this instance because Shippensburg was not operating in a government function. Plaintiffs in this argument rely upon language found in Biello v. Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board, supra. This Court does not read Biello as holding that this State’s sovereign immunity is subject to the distinction between governmental and proprietary functions. This doctrine is in fact constitutionally mandated and as previously stated can only be altered by legislation. See Poklemba v. Shamokin Hospital, 21 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 301, 304, n. 2, 344 A.2d 732, 734, n. 2 (1975). See also Brown v. Commonwealth, 453 Pa. 566, 574, n. 1, 305 A.2d 868, 873, n. 1 (1973) (Pomeroy, J. concurring). We sustain Shippensburg’s preliminary objections based upon sovereign immunity and dismiss the complaint.

Order

And Now, this 23rd day of March, 1977, the preliminary objection of defendant Shippensburg State College is sustained, and the complaint against Shippensburg State College is dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

370 A.2d 1259, 29 Pa. Commw. 373, 1977 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 770, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/finkelstein-v-shippensburg-state-college-pacommwct-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack