Hall v. Powers and Commonwealth

296 A.2d 535, 6 Pa. Commw. 544, 1972 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 421
CourtCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedNovember 6, 1972
DocketOriginal jurisdiction. No. 495 C.D. 1972
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 296 A.2d 535 (Hall v. Powers and Commonwealth) 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
Hall v. Powers and Commonwealth, 296 A.2d 535, 6 Pa. Commw. 544, 1972 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 421 (Pa. Ct. App. 1972).

Opinions

Opinion by

Judge Blatt,

This matter comes within the original jurisdiction of this Court, being a complaint in trespass filed against the Commonwealth and Thomas J. Powers, a Commonwealth employee. The plaintiff claims that she was injured when a generator, pulled by a Commonwealth owned truck, which was driven by Powers, broke free and struck the vehicle which she was driving. The Commonwealth has filed Preliminary Objections, claiming the protection of sovereign immunity from actions in trespass.

This Court has consistently and repeatedly refused to overturn the doctrine of sovereign immunity as laid down by many decisions of our Supreme Court. Our position has most recently been stated in Duquesne Light Company v. Department of Transportation, 6 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 364, 295 A. 2d 351 (1972), and previously in Lovrinoff v. Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission, 3 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 161, 281 A. 2d 176 (1971).1 See Sweigard v. Commonwealth, 5 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 637 (1972); Brown v. National Guard, 3 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 457 (1971); Kremin v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 1 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 642 (1971).

The plaintiff, however, has raised the issue here that Pennsylvania’s doctrine of sovereign immunity constitutes a denial of equal protection and due process under the United States Constitution by creating two classes of litigants; those who have a cause of action [546]*546because injured by a private tortfeasor, and those whose cause of action is barred by sovereign immunity. In Duquesne, supra, however, this Court specifically rejected that contention.

We, therefore, sustain the Commonwealth’s preliminary objections, and the plaintiff’s complaint is hereby dismissed.

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

Related

Marshall v. Port Authority
568 A.2d 931 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1990)
Brown v. Wichita State University
547 P.2d 1015 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1976)
Greer v. Metropolitan Hospital
341 A.2d 520 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1975)
Kriger v. South Oakland County Mutual Aid Pact
211 N.W.2d 228 (Michigan Court of Appeals, 1973)
DuBree v. Commonwealth
303 A.2d 530 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 1973)
Hall v. Powers and Commonwealth
296 A.2d 535 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 1972)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
296 A.2d 535, 6 Pa. Commw. 544, 1972 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 421, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hall-v-powers-and-commonwealth-pacommwct-1972.