Ried V City of Philadelphia [2008] PA. Lexis 1879, Case Study Example

Civil tort negligence case against public body, the city. Government rose as an affirmative defence governmental immunity under the Tort Claims Act. In order to establish an action of tort one must establish foreseeablity, proximity, causation (but for test) and damages.  The City was found guilty of negligence under the ‘real property’ exemption clause of the said Act and the City appealed. The Commonweath affirmed the decision stating ‘where a government agency is the owner of a real property that is adjoined to a sidewalk they can be held liable for tort action because of their failure to make liable all owners of the duties imposed on the real property owners to keep the facilities safe for use of the public’. The burden of proof is much stronger with the exemption clause where the Plaintiff must prove that the City knew of the danger and failed to take adequate measures to remedy the danger. In other words, the danger was ‘foreseeable’.

However the Supreme Court, on appeal, found that the ‘wording of the Act’ was very ‘clear’ in stating that it did not apply to the sidewalk property even those connected to City property, therefore the decision of the Commonwealth had to be reversed according to the law. A plain reading of §8542(b)(3) reveals that the legislature intended that this clause, establishing the real property exception, be inapplicable to injuries arising from sidewalk defects, even if the sidewalks abut local agency property.

The issues in this case are whether tort negligence can be brought against the City due to leaving the sidewalk unattending causing harm to the citizen. The lower court established it was foreseeable that the harm would occur hence that should give rise to an action in negligence. The rule that was applied at the Supreme Court level was Commonwealth of Pennsylvania law 8543(b)(3) mandating the exemption real property clause clearly states sidewalks are not covered under the real property law rules. The application of the law was applied as to not cover the negligence although it was established there was foreseeability of damage the City was excluded from liability because of the exemption clause. In conclusion, it is often seen that governmental agencies are often exclude from liability due to their duty to serve the public in the public’s best interests they are often given immunity to many situations.