Supler v. School Dist. of North Franklin Tp., Washington County
| Decision Date | 28 June 1962 |
| Parties | Jean SUPLER and Joseph W. Supler, by Jean Supler, His Mother and Natural Guardian, Appellants, v. SCHOOL DISTRICT OF NORTH FRANKLIN TOWNSHIP, WASHINGTON COUNTY, Pennsylvania, and W.A. Burson. Appeal of Joseph W. SUPLER by Jean Supler, His Mother and Natural Guardian. Appeal of Jean SUPLER, in her own right. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Adolph L. Zeman, Robert L. Zeman, Zeman & Zeman, Canonsburg, for appellants.
Francis H. Patrono, Patrono & Edwards, Washington, for appellee.
Before BELL C. J., and MUSMANNO, JONES, COHEN, EAGEN and O'BRIEN, JJ.
Plaintiffs seek damages for personal injuries suffered by minor plaintiff, Joseph W. Supler, as a result of alleged negligence on the part of defendant, W. A. Burson, an employee of defendant School District of North Franklin Township. Defendant School District filed an answer to plaintiffs' complaint alleging under New Matter, that it is immune from suit for the negligence of its employees while engaged in the governmental functions of the School District, and praying that the suit be dismissed. Plaintiffs then filed an Answer to New Matter averring that at the time of the occurrence of the injury the School District was fully insured against the risk involved in this case. Plaintiffs further averred that the insurance constituted a waiver of the defense of governmental immunity from suit and that in any event, by reason of such insurance, plaintiffs are entitled to maintain this action and recover a judgment against the School District to the extent of the insurance coverage. Defendant School District thereupon filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings. The Court en banc directed the entry of judgment in favor of defendant School District. From that judgment, plaintiffs took these appeals.
Since Ford v. Kendall Borough School District, 121 Pa. 543, 15 A. 812, 1 L.R.A. 607, was decided in 1888, this Court has always applied the rule that a School District is not liable in trespass for the negligence of its officers and employees while engaged in governmental functions: [*] Michael v. Lancaster School District, 391 Pa. 209 137 A.2d 456; Kesman v. Fallowfield Township School District, 345 Pa. 457, 29 A.2d 17; Devlin v Philadelphia School District, 337 Pa. 209, 215, 10 A.2d 408; Goldstein v. Philadelphia School District, 329 Pa. 71, 196 A. 863; Carlo v. Scranton School District, 319 Pa. 417, 179 A. 561.
While plaintiffs recognize that these cases express the long and well settled law of Pennsylvania, they ask us (1) to overrule them, which once again we refuse to do, or (2) if not, to modify the law and hold it inapplicable where the School District is covered by liability insurance. Practically the same arguments were presented to this Court and rejected by us in Michael v. Lancaster School District, 391 Pa. 209, 137 A.2d 456, supra, and in Kesman v. Fallowfield Township School District, 345 Pa. 457 29 A.2d 17, supra. In the Kesman case, this Court, in summarily dismissing appellants' contentions, said, (page 458, 29 A.2d page 17):
Plaintiffs further argue the rule should be modified because otherwise a School District which purchases liability insurance receives no value for the money it expends on premiums, if the district is protected by the doctrine of governmental immunity. The fallacy in this contention is demonstrated by Morris v. Mt. Lebanon Township School District, 393 Pa. 633, 144 A.2d 737, supra, in which this Court held the School...
To continue reading
Request your trial