Court Opinion

ID: 9705004
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 00:54:40.025371+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:07.385955
License: Public Domain

Opinion by
Judge Barry,
The Township of Nether Providence (Township) appeals from a judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County, which was entered in favor of Samuel and Rosemary Farnell (the Farnells) on November 18, 1983, for damages caused to the Farnells’ property (Lot 23) by soil érosion. A joint and several verdict was entered against the developer, the Winterloch Corporation (Winterloch), for failure to develop Lot 23 in accordance with either approved plans or the Township’s erosion control ordinance (Ordinance 478) and against the Township for failure to enforce Ordinance 478.
This matter was. heard initially before a board of arbitrators, which entered an award of $14,000.00 in favor of the Farnells and against the Township and Winterloch. Both losing parties appealed to the court of common. pleas. The Township then filed a motion for summary judgment and the Farnells filed a cross motion. Summary judgment on the issue of liability only •was awarded against both defendants on July 23, 1982, by the court of common pleas. A non-jury trial limited to the issue of damages was then held before a judge different than the one who determined the liability issue and the amount of $26,073.04 was ¡awarded to the Farnells. A motion for delay damages was subsequently granted, bringing the ultimate, award to $31,327.92. Winterloch agreed to an amicable entry of judgment and is no longer a party to this litigation. The Township filed exceptions which were dismissed on October 21, 1983.
*545Argument on this case was held before a panel consisting of Judge MacPhail, Judge Doyle and Senior Judge Kalish in December of 1985. We sua.sponte ordered reargument before the court en banc which was. held in December of 1986. The matter is now ready for our disposition.
The Township makes a number of arguments, all of which are inter-related. The Township alleges that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of the Farnells on the question of liability. According to this argument, summary judgment should have either been granted in the Townships favor because it owed no duty to the Farnells or denied because of the existence of disputed facts. We believe the Township did owe a duty to the Farnells, but our reasoning on this point is different than that employed by the trial, court. Because of the duty owed, the trial court did not err in refusing to grant summary judgment in the Townships favor. We do agree, however, that certain relevant factual disputes were extant and, as a result, summary judgment was mistakenly granted. Accordingly, we vacate and remand for trial so these factual disputes may properly be resolved.
On September 11, 1975, the Township approved the subdivision plans of Winterloch and, on March 23, 1976, these plans were recorded.1 On December 23, 1976, Ordinance 478, dealing with soil erosion, was enacted, effective immediately. On August 10, 1977, the township inspector issued a building permit for the construction by Winterloch of one house. The following month, September, 1977, the Farnells asked the Town*546ship for the approval of a drainage plan. On February 24, 1978, the Township wrote to the Farnells, advising them that no more houses were to be occupied unless and until the drainage plan for the entire project, which was requested in September, 1977, was renewed, reviewed and approved. The developer had changed the plans as originally filed. The changes included the structure of the houses, grading and lot lines. An “as built” plan was subsequently filed by the developer.
We must remember that the events under review in this case all occurred prior to the effective date of the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act, 42 Pa. C. S. §§8541-8564. When this cause of action arose, it was permissible to sue a municipality for the negligent furnishing of services, the basis of the Farnells’ claim for liability. It is not one of interfering with the discretionary policy of the administrative branch of the municipality. Rather, it is the negligent implementation of that policy—not one seeking the grant of final approval or a permit, but one alleging the negligent implementation of an approved plan.
The trial court, in deciding the motion for summary judgment against the Township, ruled that Ordinance 478 created a duty which required the Township to inspect Winterloch’s work on the Farnells’ property. The Township strenuously objected to such use of the provisions of Ordinance 478, arguing that the trial court erred by giving retroactive application to Ordinance 478, in that the Township approved Winterloch’s subdivision plans prior to the effective date of the ordinance. While this argument poses an interesting question of law, we do not believe that question need be resolved to decide this case.
At the time the Township approved the plans submitted by Winterloch, there was in effect Ordinance 270, a subdivision ordinance pertaining to land development, calling, inter alia, for the construction, in such *547development, of storm sewers and related improvements and facilities. Also in effect at the time was the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code (MPC), Act of July 31, 1968, P.L. 805, as amended, 53 P.S. §§10101-11202, which pertains to planned residential developments.
In their complaint, the Farnells alleged that the Township failed to properly inspect and monitor the subdivision and grading plan and, thus, allowed the construction company to construct a house at variance with the plan approved by the Township on September 11, 1975. The complaint further alleged that it was necessary to erect a retaining wall to prevent further land damage. Subsequently, cross motions for summary judgment on the issue of liability were filed.
In order to constitute a cause of action in trespass for negligence against the Township, there must exist a duty owed to the Farnells. In Safford v. Board of Commissioners, Annville Township, 35 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 631, 637, 387 A.2d 177 (1978), this Court said, “Section 511 of the MPC, 53 P.S. §10511, gave and still gives the municipality the power to enforce the developers obligation to complete improvements required by its regulations.” In Wilson v. Jefferson Township, 86 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 511, 515, 485 A.2d 861, 863 (1984), this Court said, “[i]f the Township ordinance is a subdivision ordinance under the MPC, an absolute duty to enforce the ordinance is imposed upon the Township under section 10509 of the MPC.” (Emphasis added.)
In the stipulation of facts filed pursuant to the motion for summary judgment, it was agreed that no Township personnel supervised or monitored the development to verify whether the grading was in technical conformity with the approved plans or Ordinance 478. The parties further stipulated that, as a result, the real property has been damaged due to soil erosion.
*548A motion for summary judgment may be granted only if there is no issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Mariscotti v. Tinari, 335 Pa. Superior Ct. 599, 485 A.2d 56 (1984). The record must be examined in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party and all doubts must be resolved against the moving party. Id.
A review of the record and the stipulation of facts shows that for some time soil erosion and water damage occurred to the point where it became necessary to construct a retaining wall. A duty may be breached by a failure to act, as well as by an unreasonable action. If the municipality knew, or should have known, of this condition, failure to take steps to abate such condition may constitute negligence. These are substantial factors to be considered in whether there was a violation of that duty.
Moreover, the municipality assumes a common law duty as embodied in section 324A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts, (1965), which has been adopted in Pennsylvania. Cantwell v. Allegheny County, 506 Pa. 35, 483 A.2d 1350 (1984). “In order to state a cause of action under §324A, a complaint must contain factual allegations sufficient to establish the legal requirement that the defendant has undertaken to render services to another which he should recognize as necessary for the protection of a third person.” Id. at 41, 483 A.2d at 1353.
Furthermore, in order to hold the municipality liable, it is not enough to show negligence. It must be shown that the negligence was the proximate cause of the harm, i.e., a substantial factor in causing the harm. Questions of causation in an action for negligence are not properly answerable in a motion for summary judgment. McGinty v. St. Agnes Hospital, 11 Pa. D. & C. 3rd 88 (1979). Clearly, these raise questions of feet. It is *549the function of the jury to determine whether an actors conduct has been a substantial factor in causing harm, unless the evidence clearly establishes the causal connection. Helmick v. South Union Township, 323 Pa. 433, 185 A. 609 (1936).
In their motion for summary judgment, the Farnells stated that the question of liability turned on the applicability of Ordinance 478. We do not believe this statement precludes the trial court from considering whether liability can attach to the Township because of its failure to monitor construction and discover that Winterloch was not following the approved plans. An agreed statement of facts can be the basis for summary judgment. It can be treated as an admission on file. Donegal Mutual Insurance Co. v. Transamerica Insurance Co., 62 Pa. D. & C. 2d 374 (1973). However, in its determination of whether summary judgment should issue, the trial court is concerned only with the facts which are part of the record, not conclusions of law.
Finally, the Township argues that the court erred in concluding that the Township and Winterloch were joint tortfeasors, citing Lasprogata v. Qualls, 263 Pa. Superior Ct. 174, 397 A.2d 803 (1979). Joint tortfeasors are defined as “[tjhose who act together in committing wrong, or whose acts if independent of each other, unite in causing single injury.” Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Ed. (1979) at 753. Accord Wade v. S. J. Groves & Sons Co., 283 Pa. Superior Ct. 464, 424 A.2d 902 (1981). Here, there is but one injury, that caused by soil erosion. Furthermore, the Townships reliance on Lasprogata is misplaced. The question there was whether a driver causing an accident and a doctor giving improper treatment to one injured therein were joint tortfeasors. The court held they were not because the doctors actions aggravated the original injury, thereby, in effect, causing a new injury. Presently, there is one, and only one, injury.
*550Order
Now, June 12, 1987, the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County, at Civil Division No. 79-489, dated November 18, 1983, is vacated and the matter is remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Jurisdiction relinquished.

 This approval could only have been a tentative approval. Work had not yet begun implementing the plan. In addition there were no conditions imposed, not was there a public hearing prior to the recording.