Sonnenberg v. Erie Metropolitan Transit Authority

Decision Date08 February 1991
Citation586 A.2d 1026,137 Pa.Cmwlth. 533
CourtPennsylvania Commonwealth Court
PartiesJoan M. SONNENBERG, Appellant, v. ERIE METROPOLITAN TRANSIT AUTHORITY, Appellee.

James P. Lay, III, Gifford, Lay & Johnson, with him, Stephen A. Tetuan, Erie, for appellant.

William C. Wagner, Knox, McLaughlin, Gornall & Sennett, P.C., Erie, for appellee.

Before DOYLE and SMITH, JJ., and BARRY, Senior Judge.

DOYLE, Judge:

Joan Sonnenberg appeals the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County granting summary judgment in favor of the Erie Metropolitan Transit Authority (EMTA).

On September 24, 1983, Sonnenberg was riding a bus owned and operated by EMTA. The bus stopped and Sonnenberg moved to exit through the rear door of the bus. As Sonnenberg was leaving the bus, the door suddenly closed striking her in the back and locking her into a position from which she was unable to free herself. The bus driver heard Sonnenberg's cries and released the door (apparently the door was controlled by the bus driver and not by pressure on the door treadle). Sonnenberg alleges that the impact of the bus door and her struggle to escape from the door's grasp caused permanent injury to her back.

On October 24, 1985, Sonnenberg filed a complaint against EMTA seeking damages for her injuries. On December 8, 1989, EMTA filed a motion for summary judgment alleging that EMTA was immune from suit under Section 8541 of the Judicial Code (Code), 42 Pa.C.S. § 8541 (pertaining to governmental immunity), 1 because no exception to governmental immunity applied to the facts of this case. Sonnenberg responded that EMTA could be sued under the vehicle liability exception to governmental immunity. On February 8, 1990, the trial court granted EMTA's motion for summary judgment, holding that the vehicle exception was inapplicable because the bus was not "in operation" at the time Sonnenberg was injured. This appeal followed.

Sonnenberg contends that the trial court erred in granting EMTA summary judgment on the basis of governmental immunity because EMTA can be sued under the vehicle liability exception to the Code. This exception provides:

(b) Acts which may impose liability--The following acts by a local agency or any of its employees may result in the imposition of liability on a local agency:

(1) Vehicle liability--The operation of any motor vehicle in the possession or control of a 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) (emphasis added). She argues that governmental immunity cannot attach because the bus was in "operation" when her injuries were inflicted. In the alternative she argues that governmental immunity cannot apply because her injuries were caused by a moving attachment of EMTA's bus.

This Court's scope of review of a common pleas court order granting summary judgment is limited to determining whether an error of law was committed or the trial judge abused his/her discretion. Burnatoski v. Butler Ambulance Service, 130 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 264, 567 A.2d 1121 (1989). A trial court may grant summary judgment in cases where the right is clear and free from doubt, if there is no genuine issue of material fact, and if the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Consumer Party of Pennsylvania v. Commonwealth, 510 Pa. 158, 507 A.2d 323 (1986).

The issue immediately before us is whether if the entire motor vehicle is not in motion, the physical movement of certain parts of the motor vehicle is sufficient to bring the case within the vehicle liability exception to the Code.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has interpreted the word "operation" to mean that a vehicle must actually be in motion for the exception to apply. Love v. City of Philadelphia, 518 Pa. 370, 543 A.2d 531 (1988). In Love, the plaintiff fell while exiting a parked van owned by the City of Philadelphia; the van was not moving at the time of the plaintiff's fall nor were the plaintiff's injuries inflicted by any moving part of the vehicle. The rule announced in Love was applied in Pennsylvania State Police v. Robinson, 123 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 401, 554 A.2d 172 (1989). In Robinson, a police car was found not to be in ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
35 cases
  • Balentine v. Chester Water Auth.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
    • August 21, 2018
    ......CHESTER WATER AUTHORITY, Wyatt A. Roland, Michael W. Roland and Charles Matthews, ... , homeowners brought an action against the City of Erie for damages they sustained when its employee, Tom ... the Commonwealth Court reviewed Cacchione and Sonnenberg v. Erie Metropolitan Transit Authority , 137 Pa.Cmwlth. ......
  • Lee v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transp. Authority
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania
    • August 5, 2005
    ...injury at issue" for the motor vehicle exception to apply. Id., 553 Pa. at 219, 718 A.2d at 780, citing Sonnenberg v. Erie Metro. Transit Auth., 137 Pa.Cmwlth. 533, 586 A.2d 1026 (1991); see also Warrick v. Pro Cor Ambulance, 559 Pa. 44, 739 A.2d 127 (1999), aff'g without opinion, 709 A.2d ......
  • Petsinger v. Pa. Dept. of Transp.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania
    • July 1, 2002
    ...onto SEPTA platform falls within the vehicle liability exception to state sovereign immunity); Sonnenberg v. Erie Metro. Transit Auth., 137 Pa.Cmwlth. 533, 586 A.2d 1026 (1991) (plaintiff injured by bus door can sue state agency under vehicle liability exception to state sovereign immunity ......
  • Petsinger v. Pa. Dept. of Transportation, Civil Action 01-4056 (E.D. Pa. 7/8/2002), Civil Action 01-4056.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania
    • July 8, 2002
    ...onto SEPTA platform falls within the vehicle liability exception to state sovereign immunity); Sonnenberg v. Erie Metro. Transit Auth., 586 A.2d 1026 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1991) (plaintiff injured by bus door can sue state agency under vehicle liability exception to state sovereign immunity since bus......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT