State Immunity Faces Novel Facts

By Connor Graham and Neil T. O’Donnell

Understanding Sovereign Immunity in Pennsylvania

One may suit the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, but only in limited circumstances. If the State does not consent to being sued, then it, and its officials and employees acting within the scope of their duties, enjoy sovereign immunity. The State Constitution mandates that the legislature may choose which claims are appropriate. These exceptions are strictly construed by the courts. One of these exceptions is the real estate exception, for damages caused by a “dangerous condition of Commonwealth agency real estate[.]”¹ The real estate exception is the focus of a case with particular set of facts.

A Fatal Tree Branch Accident on a Commonwealth Highway

Geoffrey J. Schmidt tragically sustained fatal injuries when the branch of a large tree fell and crushed his vehicle on a Commonwealth highway in Montgomery County.² His estate sued PennDOT and other Defendants, bringing claims in negligence, wrongful death, and the Survival Act. The estate tried to use the real estate exception to bring the case to PennDOT, arguing that the Department failed to provide sufficient warnings concerning the hazardous environment. Under this logic PennDOT, a Commonwealth Department, would be immune from suit unless the real estate exception to sovereign immunity is applicable. The issue is that the tree, albeit overhanging over a Commonwealth highway, was based on property owned by the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA). SEPTA is a Commonwealth is not connected to PennDOT, so SEPTA’s liability status does not have bearing on the effectiveness of any claim against PennDOT.

The Real Estate Exception and PennDOT’s Right-of-Way

This left Plaintiff arguing that PennDOT should be held liable because the tree is located above PennDOT’s right-of-way. The trial court appeared to believe that Plaintiff had a case, for they denied PennDOT’s motion for summary judgment on the issue. The Commonwealth Court was not as persuaded. Conceding that PennDOT could have trimmed the tree, the “right to perform maintenance does not confer property interests sufficient to expand the scope of the real estate exception” to instances where the tree originated outside of the Department’s right-of-way.³

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court Considers the Case

Schmidt’s estate successfully appealed to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, echoing the same argument used in the lower court. Oral argument was held in May, but the justices appeared split on the issue.⁴ The justices had taken the arguments under advisement. Schmidt’s estate would need to survive on the Supreme Court level to keep PennDOT in the case. Should the estate prevail, they would still need to prove PennDOT’s liability before a jury.