Case Name: Pamela PORR, an incompetent, by Fred W. Porr and Gladys Porr, her parents and natural guardians, Tamra Porr, by Fred W. Porr and Gladys Porr, her parents and natural guardians, and Fred W. Porr and Gladys Porr, Appellants, v. COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania DEPARTMENT OF STATE POLICE, James A. Barger, Commissioner, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of General Services, Ronald Lench, Secretary
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1978-07-14
Citations: 479 Pa. 419
Docket Number: No. 111
Parties: Pamela PORR, an incompetent, by Fred W. Porr and Gladys Porr, her parents and natural guardians, Tamra Porr, by Fred W. Porr and Gladys Porr, her parents and natural guardians, and Fred W. Porr and Gladys Porr, Appellants, v. COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania DEPARTMENT OF STATE POLICE, James A. Barger, Commissioner, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of General Services, Ronald Lench, Secretary.
Judges: Before EAGEN, C. J., and O’BRIEN, ROBERTS, POMEROY, NIX, MANDERINO and LARSEN, JJ.
Reporter: Pennsylvania State Reports
Volume: 479
Pages: 419–421

Head Matter:
388 A.2d 725
Pamela PORR, an incompetent, by Fred W. Porr and Gladys Porr, her parents and natural guardians, Tamra Porr, by Fred W. Porr and Gladys Porr, her parents and natural guardians, and Fred W. Porr and Gladys Porr, Appellants, v. COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania DEPARTMENT OF STATE POLICE, James A. Barger, Commissioner, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of General Services, Ronald Lench, Secretary.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
Argued May 25, 1978.
Decided July 14, 1978.
P. Nelson Alexander, York, for appellants.
David Max Baer, Deputy Atty. Gen., for appellees Com., Dept, of State Police and Dept, of General Services.
Clyde W. McIntyre, Harrisburg, for appellees James A. Barger and Ronald G. Lench.
Before EAGEN, C. J., and O’BRIEN, ROBERTS, POMEROY, NIX, MANDERINO and LARSEN, JJ.

Opinion:
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.
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.
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.
. The Commonwealth Court also dismissed the complaint against the individual defendants. Appellants do not challenge that dismissal.
. We hear this case pursuant to the Appellate Court Jurisdiction Act of 1970, Act of July 31, 1970, P.L. 673, art. II, § 203, 17 P.S. § 211.203 (Supp.1978).