Court Opinion

ID: 9649770
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 15:09:02.786341+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:12:14.855963
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion by
Judge Doyle:
I respectfully dissent from the reasoning of the majority and would not so narrowly construe the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act1 as to allow the negligent conduct of an operator of a municipal motor vehicle to escape responsibility where such conduct generally is within the intended use of the vehicle and likewise entails the use of the vehicle’s appurtenant parts. The acts of entering into or getting out of the motor vehicle, in my opinion, are within the meaning of the intended “operation” of that motor vehicle.
*144I would, however, reverse the order of the trial judge specially presiding over the hearing relating to the recusal issue on the basis that an erroneous standard was employed in reviewing the actions of Judge Snyder. See Municipal Publications, Inc. v. Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, 507 Pa. 194, 489 A.2d 1286 (1985). Accordingly, the exceptions nunc pro tunc of the City of Philadelphia in that regard should be sustained and the matter remanded for a new trial.

 Act of November 26, 1978, P.L. 1399, as amended, 53 P.S. §§5311.101-5311.803, repealed by the Act of October 5, 1980, P.L. 693. A similar act may be found in the Judicial Code, 42 Pa. C. S. §§8541-8564.