Rejecting this point for charge, the trial court held that no notice, actual or constructive, is necessary to activate the Commonwealth's liability under 42 Pa. On appeal to the Commonwealth Court, appellant argued the trial court erred in its ruling that no notice was required to hold the Commonwealth liable under 42 Pa. This holding is correct. Under 42 Pa. A common law action against a municipality for injury caused by a defect in a highway requires that the municipality had notice of the defect.
Constructive notice requires that the dangerous condition be apparent upon reasonable inspection.
The cases cited by appellee are inapposite, citing the section in reference to different issues than the one presented here. 343 may likewise apply in the circumstances of this case. In other words, liability is premised on actual or constructive notice. It is evident, therefore, that the trial court was incorrect in concluding that no notice was required to PennDOT and in failing to charge the jury on notice. When a challenge is made to the jury instructions, the appellate court must look at the charge in its entirety, against the background of evidence in the case, to determine whether an error of law was committed and whether prejudice resulted.