SMITH, Judge.
Crystal Jones appeals from the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County that granted summary judgment to the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA) and dismissed her civil action for damages.1 Jones questions whether her claims meet the exception to sovereign immunity for dangerous conditions of Commonwealth real estate as provided in Section 8522(b)(4) of the Judicial Code, 42 Pa.C.S. § 8522(b)(4).
Jones filed a complaint against SEPTA on May 27, 1997 alleging that she suffered serious and permanent injuries on December 23, 1996 when she slipped and fell on [1272]*1272rock salt on the train platform in SEPTA’s Fern Rock Station in the City of Philadelphia. SEPTA filed a timely answer with new matter asserting immunity either under Sections 8541-8564 of the Judicial Code, 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 8541-8564, relating to governmental or local agency immunity, or under Sections 8521-8528, 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 8521-8528, relating to sovereign immunity. In her deposition Jones testified that she slid on the rock salt that was on the platform floor and fell; she did not see any holes or defects in the floor, and her testimony was that she slid and fell because of the rock salt.
SEPTA filed a motion for summary judgment on March 19, 1998. SEPTA noted that the Supreme Court has held that it is a Commonwealth agency to which the sovereign immunity provisions of the Judicial Code apply, citing Feingold v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, 512 Pa. 567, 517 A.2d 1270 (1986). It asserted that the only exception to sovereign immunity under which Jones’ claim would arguably fall is that in Section 8522(b)(4), 42 Pa.C.S. § 8522(b)(4), which authorizes liability for damages caused by “[a] dangerous condition of Commonwealth agency real estate and sidewalks...Because Jones’ complaint alleged only injury due to rock salt “on” the platform rather than some defect “of’ the platform itself, SEPTA argued that she had failed to state a cause of action falling within Section 8522(b)(4) or any other immunity exception. The trial court agreed with SEPTA’s position and granted summary judgment in its favor and dismissed Jones’ complaint with prejudice by order of April 29, 1998.
Summary judgment is properly granted where “there is no genuine issue of any material fact as to a necessary element of the cause of action or defense which could be established by additional discovery or expert report.” Pa. R.C.P. No. 1035.2(1). After the close of discovery relevant to the motion, summary judgment is also appropriate if “an adverse party who will bear the burden of proof at trial has failed to produce evidence of facts essential to the cause of action or defense which in a jury trial would require the issues to be submitted to a jury.” Pa. R.C.P. No. 1035.2(2). An entry of summary judgment may be granted only in cases where the right is clear and free from doubt. Davis v. Brennan, 698 A.2d 1382 (Pa.Cmwlth.1997). The moving party has the burden of proving the non-existence of any genuine issue of material fact. Id. Parties seeking to avoid the imposition of summary judgment must show by specific facts in their depositions, answers to interrogatories, admissions or affidavits that there is a genuine issue for trial. Sovich v. Shaughnessy, 705 A.2d 942 (Pa.Cmwlth.1998).2
Jones begins by indirectly acknowledging that former case law did recognize the distinction between dangerous conditions “on” real property, for which Commonwealth parties were immune, and dangerous conditions “of’ the real property, for which they could be liable. Jones contends, however, that the Supreme Court’s decisions in Grieff v. Reisinger, 548 Pa. 13, 693 A.2d 195 (1997), and Kilgore v. City of Philadelphia, 553 Pa. 22, 717 A.2d 514 (1998), have rendered the “on”/“of’ distinction an outdated and abrogated legal standard that has been overruled sub silentio. Jones asserts that City employees were negligent by placing the rock salt on the platform when it snowed several days before her injury and then failing to remove it in a timely manner.
In Grieff a visitor to a volunteer fire company was burned when paint thinner that was being used to clean the floor ran under a refrigerator and ignited. The Supreme Court held that the injured visitor stated a cause of action under Section 8542(b)(3), relating to local agency real [1273]*1273property exception to immunity. It distinguished Mascaro v. Youth Study Center, 514 Pa. 351, 523 A.2d 1118 (1987), and Snyder v. Harmon, 522 Pa. 424, 562 A.2d 307 (1989), by stating that Mascaro and its progeny were intended to apply where third parties caused the harm. In Kilgore a vehicle on City-owned property went out of control because of accumulated ice and snow and struck the plaintiff. The Supreme Court held that the plaintiffs cause of action met the threshold conditions of stating a claim for which recovery could be had against one not enjoying an immunity defense and alleging negligence of local agency employees. Further, the court concluded that the complaint properly alleged conduct relating to the “care, custody or control of real property” under Section 8542(b)(3).
Jones acknowledges that Griejf and Kil-gore were decided under the exception to immunity for local agency real property. She asserts, however, that the Supreme Court has stated repeatedly that the sovereign and governmental immunity exceptions are identical, and their interpretation should be identical as well, citing Finn v. City of Philadelphia, 541 Pa. 596, 664 A.2d 1342 (1995). In response SEPTA emphasizes that Griejf and Kilgore were decided under the real property exception to governmental immunity in Section 8542(b)(3), for negligence relating to the “care, custody or control” of real property, rather than the real property exception to sovereign immunity in Section 8522(b)(4), which requires proof of a “dangerous condition of Commonwealth agency real estate and sidewalks....”
This Court has addressed the question of the proper interpretation of the sovereign immunity and governmental immunity real property exceptions in several decisions since Griejf. In Abella v. City of Philadelphia, 703 A.2d 547 (Pa.Cmwlth.1997), appeal denied, 555 Pa. 746, 725 A.2d 1222 (1998), the plaintiff allegedly slipped and fell on hills and ridges of ice and snow outside the State Office Building in Philadelphia. After the City of Philadelphia was dismissed from the case, the only remaining question was whether the real property exception to sovereign immunity in Section 8522(b)(4) applied.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
SMITH, Judge.
Crystal Jones appeals from the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County that granted summary judgment to the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA) and dismissed her civil action for damages.1 Jones questions whether her claims meet the exception to sovereign immunity for dangerous conditions of Commonwealth real estate as provided in Section 8522(b)(4) of the Judicial Code, 42 Pa.C.S. § 8522(b)(4).
Jones filed a complaint against SEPTA on May 27, 1997 alleging that she suffered serious and permanent injuries on December 23, 1996 when she slipped and fell on [1272]*1272rock salt on the train platform in SEPTA’s Fern Rock Station in the City of Philadelphia. SEPTA filed a timely answer with new matter asserting immunity either under Sections 8541-8564 of the Judicial Code, 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 8541-8564, relating to governmental or local agency immunity, or under Sections 8521-8528, 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 8521-8528, relating to sovereign immunity. In her deposition Jones testified that she slid on the rock salt that was on the platform floor and fell; she did not see any holes or defects in the floor, and her testimony was that she slid and fell because of the rock salt.
SEPTA filed a motion for summary judgment on March 19, 1998. SEPTA noted that the Supreme Court has held that it is a Commonwealth agency to which the sovereign immunity provisions of the Judicial Code apply, citing Feingold v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, 512 Pa. 567, 517 A.2d 1270 (1986). It asserted that the only exception to sovereign immunity under which Jones’ claim would arguably fall is that in Section 8522(b)(4), 42 Pa.C.S. § 8522(b)(4), which authorizes liability for damages caused by “[a] dangerous condition of Commonwealth agency real estate and sidewalks...Because Jones’ complaint alleged only injury due to rock salt “on” the platform rather than some defect “of’ the platform itself, SEPTA argued that she had failed to state a cause of action falling within Section 8522(b)(4) or any other immunity exception. The trial court agreed with SEPTA’s position and granted summary judgment in its favor and dismissed Jones’ complaint with prejudice by order of April 29, 1998.
Summary judgment is properly granted where “there is no genuine issue of any material fact as to a necessary element of the cause of action or defense which could be established by additional discovery or expert report.” Pa. R.C.P. No. 1035.2(1). After the close of discovery relevant to the motion, summary judgment is also appropriate if “an adverse party who will bear the burden of proof at trial has failed to produce evidence of facts essential to the cause of action or defense which in a jury trial would require the issues to be submitted to a jury.” Pa. R.C.P. No. 1035.2(2). An entry of summary judgment may be granted only in cases where the right is clear and free from doubt. Davis v. Brennan, 698 A.2d 1382 (Pa.Cmwlth.1997). The moving party has the burden of proving the non-existence of any genuine issue of material fact. Id. Parties seeking to avoid the imposition of summary judgment must show by specific facts in their depositions, answers to interrogatories, admissions or affidavits that there is a genuine issue for trial. Sovich v. Shaughnessy, 705 A.2d 942 (Pa.Cmwlth.1998).2
Jones begins by indirectly acknowledging that former case law did recognize the distinction between dangerous conditions “on” real property, for which Commonwealth parties were immune, and dangerous conditions “of’ the real property, for which they could be liable. Jones contends, however, that the Supreme Court’s decisions in Grieff v. Reisinger, 548 Pa. 13, 693 A.2d 195 (1997), and Kilgore v. City of Philadelphia, 553 Pa. 22, 717 A.2d 514 (1998), have rendered the “on”/“of’ distinction an outdated and abrogated legal standard that has been overruled sub silentio. Jones asserts that City employees were negligent by placing the rock salt on the platform when it snowed several days before her injury and then failing to remove it in a timely manner.
In Grieff a visitor to a volunteer fire company was burned when paint thinner that was being used to clean the floor ran under a refrigerator and ignited. The Supreme Court held that the injured visitor stated a cause of action under Section 8542(b)(3), relating to local agency real [1273]*1273property exception to immunity. It distinguished Mascaro v. Youth Study Center, 514 Pa. 351, 523 A.2d 1118 (1987), and Snyder v. Harmon, 522 Pa. 424, 562 A.2d 307 (1989), by stating that Mascaro and its progeny were intended to apply where third parties caused the harm. In Kilgore a vehicle on City-owned property went out of control because of accumulated ice and snow and struck the plaintiff. The Supreme Court held that the plaintiffs cause of action met the threshold conditions of stating a claim for which recovery could be had against one not enjoying an immunity defense and alleging negligence of local agency employees. Further, the court concluded that the complaint properly alleged conduct relating to the “care, custody or control of real property” under Section 8542(b)(3).
Jones acknowledges that Griejf and Kil-gore were decided under the exception to immunity for local agency real property. She asserts, however, that the Supreme Court has stated repeatedly that the sovereign and governmental immunity exceptions are identical, and their interpretation should be identical as well, citing Finn v. City of Philadelphia, 541 Pa. 596, 664 A.2d 1342 (1995). In response SEPTA emphasizes that Griejf and Kilgore were decided under the real property exception to governmental immunity in Section 8542(b)(3), for negligence relating to the “care, custody or control” of real property, rather than the real property exception to sovereign immunity in Section 8522(b)(4), which requires proof of a “dangerous condition of Commonwealth agency real estate and sidewalks....”
This Court has addressed the question of the proper interpretation of the sovereign immunity and governmental immunity real property exceptions in several decisions since Griejf. In Abella v. City of Philadelphia, 703 A.2d 547 (Pa.Cmwlth.1997), appeal denied, 555 Pa. 746, 725 A.2d 1222 (1998), the plaintiff allegedly slipped and fell on hills and ridges of ice and snow outside the State Office Building in Philadelphia. After the City of Philadelphia was dismissed from the case, the only remaining question was whether the real property exception to sovereign immunity in Section 8522(b)(4) applied. The Court stated that, although the “of’/“on” distinction had been abolished in regard to the governmental immunity real property exception, there had been no ruling from the Supreme Court that it had been displaced in regard to the sovereign immunity exception.3
More recently, in Murphy v. Commonwealth, Department of Transportation, 733 A.2d 688 (Pa.Cmwlth.1999), the issue on the merits of the appeal was whether the plaintiffs allegations that she was injured in an automobile crash when she swerved to avoid a discarded muffler in a state roadway stated a claim that was cognizable under Section 8522(b)(4), which, in addition to real estate and sidewalks, also applies to “[a] dangerous condition of ... highways under the jurisdiction of a Commonwealth agency....” The Court concluded that the “of’/“on” distinction continued to apply to claims under Section 8522(b)(4) and affirmed the order of the trial court sustaining preliminary objections filed by the Department of Transportation on that basis. See also Tallada v. East Stroudsburg University of Pennsylvania, 724 A.2d 427 (Pa.Cmwlth.1999) (holding that a state university was immune from liability under Section 8522(b)(4) where the plaintiff alleged that she fell while working in a dining [1274]*1274facility because contents of a kettle leaked onto the floor).
The stated rationale of Grieff turned on the language of the real property exception to governmental immunity that is different from that of the real property exception to sovereign immunity, and this Court consistently has held that the “of’/“on” distinction continues to apply to the latter. In the present case, Jones did not plead or testify in her deposition that there was any defect “of’ the floor where she fell; to the contrary, she alleged that her fall was caused by rock salt “on” the platform. Therefore, the trial court correctly granted summary judgment to SEPTA pursuant to Section 8522(b)(4) of the Judicial Code.
ORDER
AND NOW, this 15th day of February, 2000, the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County is affirmed.
Dissenting opinion by President Judge DOYLE.