Opinion
November 15, 1972.
December 11, 1972.
Torts — Negligence — Immunity from liability — Sovereign immunity — Minor plaintiff injured while engaging in a physical education class in school.
Before WRIGHT, P.J., WATKINS, JACOBS, HOFFMAN, SPAULDING, CERCONE, and PACKEL, JJ.
Appeal, No. 381, April T., 1972, from order of Court of Common Pleas, Civil Division, of Allegheny County, April T., 1972, No. 2313, in case of Bernard C. Hill and Joanne M. Hill, parents and natural guardians, in their own right, and Laurie Anne Hill, a minor, by Bernard C. Hill and Joanne M. Hill, her parents and natural guardians v. North Hills School District. Order affirmed.
Trespass.
Preliminary objections by defendant in nature of a demurrer sustained and complaint dismissed, opinion by McLEAN, JR., J. Plaintiffs appealed.
C. Donald Gates, Jr., with him Brandt, McManus, Brandt Malone, for appellants.
Daniel P. Stefko, with him Dickie, McCamey Chilcote, for appellee.
HOFFMAN, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which SPAULDING and PACKEL, JJ., joined.
Argued: November 15, 1972.
Order affirmed.
Appellants bring this appeal in an effort once again to glean justice out of entrenched, out-dated doctrines that have to this date denied injured parties relief. Appellants ask us to abolish the doctrine of sovereign immunity, and permit the instant case to be tried on its merits in the court below.
On October 18, 1971, minor plaintiff, Laurie Ann Hill, was engaging in a physical education class in her school. During this class, and at the specific instruction of her teacher, minor plaintiff allegedly sustained injuries when she was directed to attempt certain gymnastic exercises against her will. Preliminary objections to plaintiffs' complaint were sustained, on the ground that the school district as a subdivision of Pennsylvania was immune from liability.
I must reassert my disfavor with the continued application of this doctrine to shield political subdivisions from liability. As Justice ROBERTS said in his dissent to Laughner v. Allegheny County, 436 Pa. 572, 576, 261 A.2d 607 (1970), "With charitable immunity rejected, I can see no reason for the majority's refusal to likewise reject governmental immunity. . . . Surely this Court has permitted too many years to pass without correcting the injustices produced by its own doctrine." I must add this case to the other decisions where I have called for the end of this inequitable doctrine. Ayala v. Philadelphia Board of Public Education (concurring opinion) 223 Pa. Super. 171-72, 297 A.2d 495-96 (1972); Flisek v. Star Fireworks, Inc., (dissenting opinion) 220 Pa. Super. 350, 286 A.2d 673 (1971).
For the above stated reasons, I concur in the result of the majority.
SPAULDING and PACKEL, JJ., join in this concurring opinion.