Laughlin v. Pittsburgh

310 A.2d 289, 226 Pa. Super. 431, 1973 Pa. Super. LEXIS 1375
CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedSeptember 19, 1973
DocketAppeal, 50
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 310 A.2d 289 (Laughlin v. Pittsburgh) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Laughlin v. Pittsburgh, 310 A.2d 289, 226 Pa. Super. 431, 1973 Pa. Super. LEXIS 1375 (Pa. Ct. App. 1973).

Opinion

Opinion by

Hoffman, J.,

This is an appeal from the order of the Common Pleas Court of Allegheny County sustaining appellee’s preliminary objections to appellant’s complaint.

The instant suit arose as a result of injuries sustined by the appellant. On April 30, 1970, appellant had been painting a building at 623 Ivy Street. A Pittsburgh police officer, who had been pursuing a burglary suspect, discharged his service revolver, seriously wounding the appellant.

Recently, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court abolished the doctrine of governmental immunity, Ayala v. Philadelphia Board of Public Education, 453 Pa. 584, 305 A. 2d 877 (1973). In so doing, the Court said: “Today we conclude that no reasons whatsoever exist for continuing to adhere to the doctrine of governmental immunity. Whatever may have been the basis for the inception of the doctrine, it is clear that no public policy considerations presently justify its retention.” 453 Pa. at 592. On July 2, 1973, our Supreme Court applied its previous decision in Ayala to reverse dismissals of two companion cases which had likewise been dismissed on the ground of governmental immunity. Kitchen v. Wilkinsburg School District, 455 Pa. 633, 306 A. 2d 294 (1973), and Hansen v. Wilkinsburg School District, 455 Pa. 633, 306 A. 2d 294 (1973).

*433 In. light of Ayala and the cases that have iollowed, we vacate the order dismissing plaintiff’s complaint, and remand the case to the lower court to enter an appropriate order overruling defendant’s preliminary objections and granting defendant leave to file an answer to the complaint.

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. Rishel
7 Pa. D. & C.3d 758 (Lawrence County Court of Common Pleas, 1978)
Cable v. Beaver County
2 Pa. D. & C.3d 203 (Beaver County Court of Common Pleas, 1977)
Nido v. Chambers
70 Pa. D. & C.2d 129 (Lawrence County Court of Common Pleas, 1975)
Greer v. Metropolitan Hospital
341 A.2d 520 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1975)
Tohickon Country Club, Inc. v. Glasgow, Inc.
67 Pa. D. & C.2d 793 (Bucks County Court of Common Pleas, 1974)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
310 A.2d 289, 226 Pa. Super. 431, 1973 Pa. Super. LEXIS 1375, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/laughlin-v-pittsburgh-pasuperct-1973.