Court Opinion

ID: 9544338
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:54:50.636246+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:12:47.939896
License: Public Domain

ZAPPALA, Justice,
concurring.
While I join in Part I of the majority opinion regarding the constitutional authority to limit tort recovery against the Commonwealth and concur with the result, I once again disagree with the majority’s determination that an intermediate or “heightened scrutiny” standard of review is appropriate. See James v. SEPTA, 505 Pa. 137, 149, 477 A.2d 1302, 1308 (1984) (Concurring Opinion of Zappala, J.) As in James, I would hold that the proper standard of review is the rational basis test. Under the present facts, this test was met.
HUTCHINSON, J., joins in this concurring opinion.