Porr v. Commonwealth

388 A.2d 725, 479 Pa. 419, 1978 Pa. LEXIS 773
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided July 14, 1978·No. No. 111·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinions

OPINION OF THE COURT

ROBERTS, Justice.

Appellants Pamela Porr and Tamra Porr, by their parents, brought an action in trespass against the Department of State Police and the Department of General Services, two agencies of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and appellees here, and one official of each agency. The complaint asked for damages to compensate plaintiffs for injuries allegedly incurred when a state police vehicle struck the car in which appellants were riding. The Commonwealth Court dismissed the complaint against appellees on the grounds that, as agencies of the Commonwealth, appellees were protected by the sovereign immunity of the Commonwealth.1

We have this day abrogated the doctrine of sovereign immunity. Mayle v. Pennsylvania Department of Highways, 479 Pa. 384, 388 A.2d 709 (1978). We therefore reverse the order of the Commonwealth Court and remand for further proceedings.2

Order reversed and case remanded.

O’BRIEN, J., filed a dissenting opinion in which EAGEN, C. J., and POMEROY, J., joined. POMEROY, J., filed a dissenting opinion in which EAG-EN, C. J., and O’BRIEN, J., joined.

Footnotes

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

Porr v. Commonwealth, 388 A.2d 725, 479 Pa. 419, 1978 Pa. LEXIS 773 (Pa. 1978).

388 A.2d 725 (Porr v. Commonwealth) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Greenfield v. Vesella
457 F. Supp. 316 (W.D. Pennsylvania, 1978)
Mayle v. Pennsylvania Department of Highways
390 A.2d 181 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1978)