Granchi v. Borough of North Braddock
Opinion
*748 OPINION BY
In this appeal from summary judgment against an injured plaintiff and in favor of a volunteer fire department, we are asked: “when is a street not a street?” We hold, for purposes of immunity under the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act (Act), 1 a street remains a street despite temporary cessation of vehicular traffic.
Florence Granchi (Granchi) appeals from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County (trial court) granting North Braddock Volunteer Fire Department’s (Fire Department) motion for summary judgment.
Granchi was injured while volunteering at a Fire Department fundraiser held on a blocked off public street of which the Fire Department had taken temporary control. While retrieving bingo cards from what normally was the middle of the roadway, Granchi tripped over a box 2 protruding from underneath a table and was injured.
Granchi sued two local agencies, the Fire Department and the Borough of North Braddock (Borough). See Guinn v. Alburtis Fire Co., 531 Pa. 500, 614 A.2d 218 (1992)(fire department is a local agency under the Act, even if it is not engaged in fire fighting duties). See also Kniaz v. Benton Borough, 164 Pa.Cmwlth. 109, 642 A.2d 551 (1994). Both defendants filed motions for summary judgment claiming immunity under the Act. The trial court initially granted only the Borough’s motion, but, on motion to reconsider, also granted the Fire Department summary judgment. Granchi appeals that order. 3
In order to succeed, Granchi must avoid the immunity generally shielding local agencies from liability. There is an exception to immunity for streets and sidewalks, 4 but it does not apply to the Fire *749 Company. 5 Therefore, Granchi seeks benefit from a different exception to immunity.
In particular, she attempts to establish the Fire Company’s liability under the care, custody and control of real property exception to immunity. 6 Unfortunately for Granchi, streets are specifically excluded from the real property exception to immunity. Thus, Granchi contends that the street was not being used as a street at the time of her injury and that the street exception should not apply here.
While local agencies are generally immune from suit, liability may be imposed where (1) damages would be recoverable at common law or under a statute creating a cause of action if the injury were caused by a person not protected by immunity, and (2) the claim falls within one of the statutory exceptions to governmental immunity in Section 8542(b) of the Act. Wilson v. Norristown Area Sch. Dist., 783 A.2d 871 (Pa.Cmwlth.2001).
“Because the legislature’s intent in both the Sovereign Immunity Act and Tort Claims Act is to shield government from liability, except as provided for in the statutes themselves, we apply a rule of strict construction in interpreting these- exceptions.” Jones, 565 Pa. at 220, 772 A.2d at 440. As with any statutory construction question, the rules set forth in the Statutory Construction Act dictate that “[wjords and phrases shall be construed according to rules of grammar and according to them common and approved usage.... ” 1 Pa. C.S. § 1903. Webster’s Dictionary 7 defines a street as “a thoroughfare especially in a city, town, or village that is wider than an alley or lane and that usually includes sidewalks; the part of a street reserved for vehicles; a thoroughfare with abutting property.” Likewise, Black’s Law Dictionary 8 defines a street as “[a] road or public thoroughfare used for travel in an urban area, including the pavement, shoulders, gutters, curbs, and other areas within the street lines.”
Under these definitions, and in common usage, the presence of vehicular traffic is not dispositive in transforming a strip of asphalt into a “street;” the thoroughfare is a street because of its physical characteristics, location, primary and intended use, *750 and legal descriptions of record. Since streets are specifically excluded from the real property exception, Granehi’s claim cannot proceed.
Rights and responsibilities relating to streets arise as a matter of real property law. These rights and responsibilities exist independent of the presence or absence of vehicles, pedestrians, organized race participants, protest marchers, parades, vendor wagons or other moveable objects. These rights and responsibilities are relatively fixed and predictable. It would be unwise to adopt a fiction that would permit fluctuations in the rights and responsibilities for streets based on temporary use.
Accordingly, the trial court’s order granting summary judgment is affirmed.
ORDER
AND NOW, this 19th day of November, 2002, the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County granting summary judgment is affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
810 A.2d 747 (Granchi v. Borough of North Braddock) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.