Court Opinion

ID: 9649635
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 15:04:14.112115+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:24:41.998602
License: Public Domain

Justice NEWMAN,
concurring and dissenting.
I concur in the majority’s conclusion that the Southern Chester County Medical Center (SCCMC) does not qualify for immunity pursuant to Section ll(j)(2) of the Emergency Medical Services Act, Act of July 3, 1985, P.L. 164, No. 45, as amended, 35 P.S. § 6931(j)(2). Therefore, I agree with the majority that the Commonwealth Court properly reversed the grant of summary judgment in favor of SCCMC. However, I dissent from the majority’s disposition of the governmental immunity issue because I believe that the failure of the Longwood Ambulance Company (Longwood) driver to follow the directions provided is an act involving the operation of a motor vehicle.
The “vehicle exception” to governmental immunity, codified in Section 8542(b)(1) of the Judicial Code, provides that a local agency, such as Longwood, is hable for damages on account of injury to a person or property if the injury results from “[t]he operation of any motor vehicle in the possession or control of the local agency.... As used in this paragraph, “motor vehicle” means any vehicle which is self-propelled and any attachment thereto, including vehicles operated by rail, through water or in the air.” 42 Pa.C.S. § 8542(b)(1). The agency is equally liable if an employee of the local agency undertakes the act causing the injury. Id. In this case, the Regesters presented evidence that the ambulance driver failed to follow the directions to the scene provided by the Regesters. The Commonwealth Court affirmed summary judgment in favor of *425Longwood, reasoning that the vehicle exception did not apply because an act “with respect to the giving and receiving of directions” does not constitute operation of a motor vehicle. Regester v. Longwood Ambulance Company, Inc., 751 A.2d 694, 703 (Pa.Cmwlth.2000). I disagree.
This case presents an issue similar to that discussed in Warrick v. Pro Cor Ambulance, Inc., 559 Pa. 44, 739 A.2d 127 (1999) (Newman, J., dissenting from per curiam affirmance). In Warrick, a SEPTA bus discharged five-year old Julian Warrick (Julian) and his eleven-year-old brother near the dangerous intersection of 33rd and Spring Garden Streets in Philadelphia, which was not the regular bus stop. The bus blocked the children from view of the cars travelling on Spring Garden Street. Julian began crossing the street, when an ambulance passed, hitting him. He died the next day from the injuries sustained as a result of the accident. Lisa War-rick (Warrick), the administratix of Julian’s estate, filed suit against SEPTA, the ambulance driver, and the ambulance corporate entities. SEPTA moved for summary judgment, asserting entitlement to sovereign immunity, pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 8521, et seq. Warrick countered that the vehicle exception to sovereign immunity, codified at 42 Pa.C.S. § 8522(b)(1), applied and rendered SEPTA liable.1
The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of SEPTA and the Commonwealth Court affirmed without dissent. Warrick v. Pro Cor Ambulance, Inc., 709 A.2d 422 (Pa.Cmwlth.1997). The Commonwealth Court reasoned that “Pennsylvania casélaw limits injuries caused by the operation of a vehicle to those injuries resulting from the actual movement of the vehicle or a moving part of the vehicle.” Id. at 427. We granted allocatur to determine “whether the decedent’s injuries were the result of the operation of a SEPTA bus, thus making the motor vehicle exception to sovereign immunity applicable.” Warrick v. Pro Cor Ambulance, Inc., 552 Pa. 384, 715 A.2d 430 (1998) (per curiam Order granting *426the Petition for Allowance of Appeal). After hearing oral argument in Warrick, a majority of this Court issued a per curiam Order, affirming the Order of the Commonwealth Court.
I dissented from the per curiam Order, reasoning as follows:
The determination that the motor vehicle exception is limited to an injury thát results from “the movement of the bus or by any moving part of the bus” is much too narrowly drawn. The process of operating a vehicle encompasses more than simply moving the vehicle. When a person “operates” a vehicle, he makes a series of decisions and actions, taken together, which transport the individual from one place to another. The decisions of where and whether to park, where and whether to turn, whether to engage brake lights, whether to use appropriate signals, whether to turn lights on or off, and the like, are all part of the “operation” of a vehicle.
Warrick, 739 A.2d at 128 (emphasis added). While I recognize that this position failed to garner a majority of the Court in Warrick, it remains my position. As applied to the case sub judice, the Regesters presented evidence to the trial court that the Longwood ambulance driver failed to follow the directions that the Regesters provided. As following directions inherently implicates, at the very least, the decision of where and whether to turn, it constitutes an act in the operation of a motor vehicle. Accordingly, I believe that the Commonwealth Court erred in affirming summary judgment in favor of Longwood.
Justice NIGRO joins this- concurring and dissenting opinion.

. In relevant part, the vehicle exception to sovereign immunity contains the exact same language as the vehicle exception to governmental immunity.