From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Fenton v. City of Philadelphia

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Feb 7, 1991
585 A.2d 1003 (Pa. 1991)

Summary

concluding that the plaintiff failed to establish an exception to governmental immunity because she offered only proof of a dangerous condition in general, but did not establish that the City had notice of the specific problem of a need for a left-hand turning lane, even though the street had been paved several times by City workers

Summary of this case from Gramlich v. Lower Southampton TP

Opinion

Argued January 17, 1991.

Decided February 7, 1991.

Appeal No. 92 E.D. Appeal Dkt. 1990 from Order of Commonwealth Court, 127 Pa. Commw. 466, 561 A.2d 1334 (1989), entered August 4, 1989, at Nos. 1635 and 1636 C.D. 1988, Reversing Orders of Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia, Trial Division, Civil Section, entered June 7 and June 22, 1988, at No. 5405, October Term, 1983.

Larry E. Coben, Eleanor D. Thompson, Philadelphia, for appellant.

Miriam B. Brenaman, Chief Asst. City Sol., for appellees.

Before NIX, C.J., and LARSEN, FLAHERTY, McDERMOTT, ZAPPALA, PAPADAKOS and CAPPY, JJ.


ORDER


Order affirmed.

LARSEN, J., dissents.


Summaries of

Fenton v. City of Philadelphia

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Feb 7, 1991
585 A.2d 1003 (Pa. 1991)

concluding that the plaintiff failed to establish an exception to governmental immunity because she offered only proof of a dangerous condition in general, but did not establish that the City had notice of the specific problem of a need for a left-hand turning lane, even though the street had been paved several times by City workers

Summary of this case from Gramlich v. Lower Southampton TP

rejecting plaintiff's assertion that city had constructive notice of dangerous condition under “traffic controls” or “streets” exceptions to local agency immunity arising out of city's failure to paint left hand turning lane on street, where none of plaintiff's evidence dealt with specific problem of lack of a left hand turning lane on street or that city was informed of such a problem

Summary of this case from King v. Pittsburgh Water & Sewer Auth.
Case details for

Fenton v. City of Philadelphia

Case Details

Full title:Marie FENTON, Administratrix of the Estate of William Carter, Appellant…

Court:Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Date published: Feb 7, 1991

Citations

585 A.2d 1003 (Pa. 1991)
585 A.2d 1003

Citing Cases

King v. Pittsburgh Water & Sewer Auth.

, e.g., Gramlich v. L. Southampton Twp., 838 A.2d 843 (Pa.Cmwlth.2003) (rejecting plaintiffs' assertions that…

Kennedy v. City of Philadelphia

Because we conclude that painting some lines constitutes erection of a traffic control device, we must…