Wallace v. Pittsburgh School District

• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: PER CURIAM
• Citation: Wallace v. Pittsburgh School District, 316 Pa. 388, 175 A. 411 (Pa. 1934)
• Decision Date: 26 November 1934
• Docket Number: 274
• Parties: Wallace, Appellant, v. Pittsburgh School District

175 A. 411

316 Pa. 388

Wallace, Appellant, v. Pittsburgh School District

No. 274

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

November 26, 1934

Argued October 8, 1934

Appeal, No. 274, March T., 1934, by plaintiff, from judgment of C.P. Allegheny Co., July T., 1934, No. 2071, in case of John Wallace v. The School District of Pittsburgh. Judgment affirmed.

Trespass for personal injuries. Before ROWAND, SMITH and RICHARDSON JJ.

The opinion of the Supreme Court states the facts.

Affidavit of defense raising questions of law sustained, and judgment entered for defendant in opinion by RICHARDSON, J. Plaintiff appealed.

Error assigned was order, quoting record.

Judgment affirmed.

W. G. Negley, of Negley & Negley, for appellant.

N. R. Criss and J. C. McIlwain, for appellee, were not heard.

Before FRAZER, C.J., SIMPSON, KEPHART, SCHAFFER, MAXEY, DREW and LINN, JJ.

OPINION

PER CURIAM

This action of trespass was brought against the School District of Pittsburgh by John Wallace to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been received as a consequence of the negligence of the defendant, its servants and agents.

Plaintiff was employed by Frank E. Allen, who had a contract with defendant to remove ashes from various buildings belonging to the school district. The injuries alleged occurred in the course of this work; it is unnecessary to recite the facts in detail. Defendant's affidavit of defense raising questions of law denied there was a sufficient allegation of negligence, and further averred that, even were negligence established, the facts of this case prevent recovery from defendant under the well-known rule that a state agency or public charity is immune from liability for the negligent acts of its agents or employees. Plaintiff, recognizing this general rule, seeks to recover on the ground that a school district may be sued for breach of contract, citing cases and that his rights arise under the contract between his employer and defendant. As the court below states, the cases cited refer to contracts to which plaintiff was a party and do not apply under the circumstances here presented. In this case, plaintiff was not privy to the contract alleged and could not claim under it. No citation of authorities is needed in support of such a fundamental principle, but Wildoner v. Luzerne Co. Central Poor Dist., 267 Pa. 375, and Brinton v. School District of Shenango Twp., 81 Pa.Super....