Court Opinion

ID: 9717812
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 07:10:38.451272+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:55.583645
License: Public Domain

FLAHERTY, Justice,
concurring and dissenting.
I have grave reservations about the court’s holding. Although it appears simple, it presages profound egregious consequences.
The accident in this case occurred at the intersection of state route 51 and Scotia Hollow Road, a county road. Route 51 is a four-lane, north-south highway and Scotia Hollow Road is a two-lane east-west roadway. At the intersection, eastbound traffic on Scotia Hollow Road is controlled by a stop sign. The Mura vehicle stopped at the stop sign, then attempted a left turn across two southbound lanes of Route 51 to enter the northbound lanes of Route 51. The Mura vehicle *534collided with the southbound vehicle of Kelley before reaching the northbound side of Route 51. Allegheny County, responsible for Scotia Hollow Road, is alleged to be negligent in the design, construction, and maintenance of its roadway.
In Bendas v. Township of White Deer, 531 Pa. 180, 611 A.2d 1184 (1992), we held that the exception to the Sovereign Immunity Act which imposes liability on the Commonwealth for allowing a dangerous condition on Commonwealth real estate and highways, 42 Pa.C.S. § 8522(b)(4), raises a jury question as to what constitutes a dangerous condition. Thus summary judgment was deemed inappropriate when the Commonwealth raised the defense of sovereign immunity in the face of alleged negligence in design and maintenance of an intersection on a state highway. Id. The statutes governing sovereign immunity, 42 Pa.C.S. § 8521 et seq., and governmental immunity, the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act, 42 Pa.C.S. § 8541 et seq., are to be interpreted consistently. Crowell v. City of Philadelphia, 531 Pa. 400, 410 n. 8, 613 A.2d 1178, 1183 n. 8 (1992); Snyder v. Harmon, 522 Pa. 424, 435 n. 7, 562 A.2d 307, 312 n. 7 (1989). Therefore, the governmental immunity of the County of Allegheny in this case is waived if a jury determines that the county allowed a dangerous condition on a street in its jurisdiction, pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 8542(b)(6)(i).
I fear that the court is relegating to the jury what is appropriately a legislative function. The jury would be empowered to dictate significant alterations and additions to the infrastructure with no concomitant accountability for financing. I doubt this was the intent of the legislature in waiving sovereign and governmental immunity as to dangerous conditions on the highways.
The statutory section waiving sovereign immunity makes the Commonwealth liable for a “dangerous condition of ... highways,” 42 Pa.C.S. § 8522(b)(4), and the section waiving governmental immunity does so for a “dangerous condition of streets,” 42 Pa.C.S. § 8542(b)(6)®. We held that a “dangerous condition” might include negligent failure to erect a traffic control device. . Bendas, supra. That, to me, should be the *535outer limit of the scope of the duty of the Commonwealth or political subdivision. I would interpret “dangerous condition of streets” and “dangerous condition of highways” to mean the condition of existing streets and highways and absolutely exclude consideration of streets, highways, roadways, parkways, expressways, ramps, overpasses, underpasses, detours, and interchanges which might have been, but were not, built.
In this case, the allegations go far beyond what the statute contemplates. This is not a case of failing to maintain a stop sign once provided, or even a case of failing to provide a traffic signal where safety required; the complaint against the county in this case alleges negligence for improper design and construction of Scotia Hollow Road, for failing to provide a detour route, for failing to prohibit egress from Scotia Hollow Road to Route 51, for permitting left turns onto Route 51, for failing to design and construct a ramp or overpass at Route 51, and for failing to implement other proper engineering endeavors. Thus jurors are invited to consider the most radical and costly remedies to reduce the peril inherent in motor vehicle transportation. I believe these are legislative or political factors, not jury questions.
The breadth of the factors which would be relevant to assessment of whether or not a governmental unit should have constructed a ramp or overpass — considerations of engineering, traffic studies, probability analysis, architecture, environmental impact, construction, design, financing, and taxation— would necessarily involve expert testimony, unnecessarily overcomplicating the garden-variety auto accident case, and, more important, interject the jury into a process more appropriately conducted in the political forum. I believe the executive and legislative branches, with political and fiscal accountability, should have sole authority to determine what streets and highways should be made and provided.
I therefore concur in the result insofar as it rejects the county’s preliminary objections on the basis of governmental immunity; the county has a duty to maintain its roadways in a reasonable manner. I would, nevertheless, unequivocally pre*536elude any consideration of roadways which exist only in the mind of the appellant.
NIX, C.J., joins this opinion.