Pennsylvania Sovereign Immunity Statute Essay Example for Free

public address system Sovereign granting immunity Statute testRooted in the history of common law in England was the immunity of the supreme from the processes of the law (Christie and Meeks, 1990). However, this mind of some man or body of men above the law was said to be excommunicationable to the English concept of justice (Christie and Meeks, 1990). The King can do no wrong was often the interpretation for the said immunity still de n unmatchabled more the lack of adequate redress at law than absence of capacity to violate the law (Christie and Meeks, 1990).Thus, the agitation for the availability of tort remedy against the sovereign, or the deposit to whatsoever considerable degree led to the mature development of the law (Christie and Meeks 1990, page 1202). Be reason of the increase in the screen background of governmental activities and the expanding activities of the Federal Government which touch upon the life of every citizen in much(prenominal) an intim ate manner, pressures to all abolish the asserts immunity from suit or to have a waiver of the sovereign immunity in limited situations, increased (Christie and Meeks, 1990).The Pennsylvania Sovereign ohmic resistance Statute has been one of those which hoped to consider the increasing dissatisf exercise with the concept of sovereign immunity from suit (Christie and Meeks, 1990). This paper hopes to explain the Pennsylvania Sovereign resistance Statute and the ejections provided for down the stairs the said statute. The paper would to a fault present the particular Constitutional provision which provides nurture for the exception to the Sovereign Immunity. Finally, the paper hopes to present depicted object laws, the venue, process and limitations, in order to explain provided the exception to the said immunity statute.Pennsylvania Sovereign Immunity Statute Over three-fourths of the states in the United States of America have either totally abolished the doctrine of sover eign immunity or advantageously modified it (Christie and Meeks, 1990). One such example is Pennsylvania which provides for exceptions to the doctrine of sovereign immunity. 42 Pa. C. S. 8521-8528 provides for the Sovereign Immunity in general, the exceptions and the limitations on damages. 42 Pa. C. S. 8522 (b) provide for acts which may impose indebtedness which includeVehicle financial obligation or the operation of all motor vehicle in the possession or control of a tribe party Medical-professional liability or acts of wellness apprehension employees of rural area theatrical medical facilities or institutions or by a Commonwealth party who is a doctor, dentist, nurse or related health c atomic number 18 personnel Care, clutch or control of person-to-person piazza in the possession or control of Commonwealth parties, including Commonwealth- have personal property and property of persons held by a Commonwealth agency A dangerous condition of Commonwealth agency real estate and sidewalks, including Commonwealth-owned real property, leaseholds in the possession of a Commonwealth agency and Commonwealth-owned real property leased by a Commonwealth agency to backstage persons, and highways under(a) the jurisdiction of a Commonwealth agency Potholes and another(prenominal) dangerous conditions of highways under the jurisdiction of a Commonwealth agency created by potholes or sinkholes or other similar conditions created by natural elementsThe care, custody or control of animals in the possession or control of a Commonwealth party, including but not limited to police dogs and horses and animals incarcerated in Commonwealth agency laboratories the sale of hard liquor at Pennsylvania liquor stores by employees of the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board created by and operating under the Liquor Code, if such sale is made to any minor, or to any person visibly intoxicated, or to any raving mad person, or to any person know as an exerciseual drunkard , or of cognise intemperate habitNational Guard activities or acts of a member of the Pennsylvania military forces and finally, the administration, manufacture and use of a toxoid or vaccine not manufactured in the Commonwealth under conditions specified by the statute (42 Pa. C. S. 8522 (b)). Under the Pennsylvania Constitution, all courts shall be open and every man for an disgrace make him in his lands, goods, person or reputation shall have remedy by due course of law, without sale, abnegation or delay, and suits may be brought against the Commonwealth in such manner, in such courts and in such cases as the Legislature may by law direct (Pa. Const. Art. I, 11).Hence, under this provision the general congregation waives sovereign immunity which is a bar to an action against commonwealth parties where damages would be recoverable under the common law or statute creating a cause of action if the injury were caused by a person to whom the defense of sovereign immunity is not functional (Westlaw, n. d. ). Exceptions to the Sovereign Immunity The first exception to sovereign immunity is the vehicle liability or the operation of any motor vehicle liability in the possession or control of a Commonwealth party (42 Pa. C. S. 8522 (b)). Motor vehicle intend any vehicle which is self-propelled and any attachment thereto, including vehicles operated by rail, through water or in the air (42 Pa. C. S. 8522 (b)).In Harding v. city of Philadelphia, 777 A. 2d 1249 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2001), the dally held that bicycles are not motor vehicles (Governors revolve around for Local Government Services, 2003). In determining whether the vehicle is in operation, the Supreme coquette held that the dispatchers directions do not constitute operation under the vehicle exception (Regester v. Longwood Ambulance Company, Inc. , 797 A. 2d 898 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002)).In some other case, the Court held that citys negligent maintenance and repair of fire departments rescue van was oper ation of motor vehicle within meaning of motor vehicle exception to governmental immunity (Mickle v.City of Philadelphia 550 Pa. 539, 707 A. 2d 1124 (1998)). The Court further explains in the case of Vogel v. Langer, 569 A. 2d 1047 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1990), that operation necessarily entails momentary stops due to handicraft and communication with other drivers, or such acts which are an integral part of the operation itself (Vogel v. Langer, 569 A. 2d 1047 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1990)). The siemens exception provides for the medical-professional liability or acts of health care employees of Commonwealth agency medical facilities or institutions or by a Commonwealth party who is a doctor, dentist, nurse or related health care personnel (42 Pa. C. S. 8522 (b)).In Williams v. Syed, No. 431 C. D. 2001, the Court held that Dr. Syed has no privilege to accept sovereign immunity as a defense because as Chief Medical Director of State Correctional Institute at Pittsburgh, he falls within the medical p rofessional liability (Williams v. Syed, No. 431 C. D. 2001). In the case of heap v. Wapner, 368 A. 2d 292 (Pa. Super. 1976), patients successfully sued physicians for their negligent failure to monitor the patients after administering certain drugs (Stack v. Wapner, 368 A. 2d 292 (Pa. Super. 1976)). The third provides for the personal property exception, which is under the possession or control of the Commonwealth.The Court held that personal property must flat cause plaintiffs injury not just facilitate it (Dept. of Environmental Resources v. Myers, 581 A. 2d 696 Pa. Cmwlth. (1990)). In this case, a helicopter pilot brought an action for injuries incurred when, under contract with the Department of Environmental Resources (DER), his helicopter ran into might lines while spraying for gypsy moths (Dept. of Environmental Resources v. Myers, 581 A. 2d 696 Pa. Cmwlth. (1990)). The pilot alleged that DER negligently placed the balloons patsy the boundaries of the area to be sprayed as well as negligently providing him with a typographical map that failed to build the power lines (Dept. of Environmental Resources v. Myers, 581 A. 2d 696 Pa.Cmwlth. (1990)).Because of the negligent placement of the balloons and the incorrectly marked map, the pilot contended those items of the Commonwealths personal property directly caused his injuries (Dept. of Environmental Resources v. Myers, 581 A. 2d 696 Pa. Cmwlth. (1990)). Rejecting that argument, the Court held that the placement of the balloons did not cause the injury, but precisely facilitated some other kind of negligence which is professional incompetence (Dept. of Environmental Resources v. Myers, 581 A. 2d 696 Pa. Cmwlth. (1990)). The fourth provides for the real property exception which is under the care, custody or control of the agency.The Court in a case held that the scroll saying was realty, taking into account the nature of the saw, the status of it with respect to the realty, the manner of annexation, and the use for which the scroll saw was installed (Cureton ex. rel. shank v. Philadelphia School District, 798 A. 2d 279 Pa. Cmwlth. 2002). In Collins v. City of Philadelphia 227 Pa. 121, 75 A. 1028, Pa. 1910, the Court held that the hole, six inches square, near the pose of a narrow sidewalk and in the direct line of ordinary travel, was more or slight dangerous to all persons passing, whether walking or on skates (Collins v. City of Philadelphia 227 Pa. 121, 75 A. 1028, Pa. 1910).Thus, the girl whose foot went into the initiative which resulted in permanent injuries, is within the exception provided by the statute (Collins v. City of Philadelphia 227 Pa. 121, 75 A. 1028, Pa. 910). The fifth exception provides that a dangerous condition of highways under the jurisdiction of a Commonwealth agency created by potholes or sinkholes or other similar conditions created by natural elements, shall be an exception to the sovereign immunity but the claimant must establish that the dange rous condition created a reasonably foreseeable risk of the kind of injury and that the Commonwealth agency had actual written notice of the dangerous condition of the highway a suitable time prior to the event to have taken measures to protect against the dangerous condition (42 Pa. C. S. 8522 (b)).In Litchfield, 22 D. C. 4th 123 (C. P.Clinton 1994) in that the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation has the responsibility to make a highway under its jurisdiction safe before it can change over that jurisdiction, and that whether the highway was safe at the time of channelise is a factual issue for the jury (Litchfield, 22 D. C. 4th 123 (C. P. Clinton 1994)). The sixth exception provides for the care, custody or control of animals in the possession or control of animals in the possession or control of a Commonwealth party to which the Commonwealth may be held liable (condition (42 Pa. C. S. 8522 (b)). In a case, the Court held that the City of Philadelphia was not in contro l of a stray dog that attacked the plaintiff under the exception because a stray dog was not within the possession and control of the City (Jenkins v. Kelly, 498 A. 2d 487 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1985).Furthermore, the Court in addition held in another case that the fact that a township had investigated prior attacks by a dog, owned by a backstage citizen, and had even temporarily quarantined the dog on one of the occasions, did not create possession or control of the dog, when, at its owners premises, the dog attacked her guests (Lerro ex rel. Lerro v. amphetamine Darby Tp. , 798 A. 2d 817 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002). The seventh exception provides that liquor store sales at Pennsylvania liquor stores by employees of the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board if such sale is made to any minor, or to any person visibly intoxicated or to any insane person, or to any person known to any person known as a habitual drunkard or of a known intemperate habit then, Commonwealth cannot use as a defense, sovereign immunity (42 Pa. C. S. 8522 (b)). Acts of members of the military forces are also included in the exception from the sovereign immunity statute (42 Pa. C. S. 8522 (b)).In a case, the Court held that the proposition that the Supreme Court held that the supremacy clause of the United States Constitution prevents a state from immunizing state acts from liability imposed under federal holding that because the Pennsylvania Sovereign Immunity Act does not immunize the unnamed defendants from a cause of action created under federal law, the action cannot be foreclosed merely because the conduct of the defendants does not fall within any of the exceptions to immunity (Heinly v. Commonwealth, 153 Pa. Cmwlth. 599, 621 A. 2d 1212, 1215, 1216 (1993)). Finally, the last exception provides that the liability may be imposed on the Commonwealth for a toxoid or vaccine not manufactured in Pennsylvania and Pennsylvania must take responsibility for it (42 Pa. C. S. 8522 (b)).The statute provides fo r the following special guidelines, that the toxoid or vaccine is manufactured in, and available only from, an agency of another state the agency of the other state will not make the toxoid or vaccine available to private persons or corporations, but will only permit its sale to another state or state agency the agency of the other state will make the toxoid or vaccine available to the Commonwealth only if the Commonwealth agrees to indemnify, defend and save harmless that agency from any and all claims and losings which may arise against it from the administration, manufacture or use of the toxoid or vaccine a mark has been made by the appropriate Commonwealth agency, approved by the Governor and published in the Pennsylvania Bulletin, that the toxoid or vaccine is obligatory to safeguard and protect the health of the citizens or animals of this Commonwealth the toxoid or vaccine is distributed by a Commonwealth agency to qualified persons for ultimate use.Hence, the Court held that to control this exception, there must be a strict interpretation based on the legislatures intent (Jones v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority 565 Pa. 211, 772 A. 2d 435 (2001)). Venue, Process and Limitations As provided in 42 Pa. C. S. 8523, actions for claims against a Commonwealth party may be brought in and only in a county in which the principal or local office of the Commonwealth party is located or in which the cause of action arose or where a transaction or occurrence took place out of which the cause of action arose (42 Pa. C. S. 8523).The statute adds that if venue is obtained in the Twelfth Judicial District (Dauphin County) solely because the principal office of the Commonwealth party is located within it, any judge of the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County shall have the power to transfer the action to any appropriate county where venue would otherwise lie (42 Pa. C. S. 8523). The service of process in the case of an action against the Com monwealth shall be made at the principal or local office of the Commonwealth agency that is being sued and at the office of the Attorney General lie (42 Pa. C. S. 8523). Limitations on damages is also stated in 42 Pa. C. S. 8528 wherein damages arising from the same cause of action or transaction or occurrence or series of causes of action or transactions or occurrences shall not exceed $250,000, in favor of any plaintiff or $1,000,000 in the aggregate (42 Pa. C. S. 8528).Furthermore the types of damages recoverable are those damages recoverable only for Past and future loss of earnings and earning capacity Pain and scathe Medical and dental expenses including the reasonable value of reasonable and necessary medical and dental services, prosthetic devices and necessary ambulance, hospital, professional nursing, and physical therapy expenses accrued and anticipated in the diagnosis, care and recovery of the claimant Loss of consortium airplane propeller losses, except that prope rty losses shall not be recoverable in claims brought pursuant to section 8522(b)(5) which relates to potholes and other dangerous conditions (42 Pa. C. S. 8528). In all these, suits against an agency of Pennsylvania may prosper once the plaintiff provides that his claim is under one of the exceptions provided for under the statute. The sovereign immunity therefore under the Pennsylvania Sovereign Immunity Statute is not at all absolute and persons may file suits if their claims fall under one of the exceptions provided.