Trucking & Transportation
By Joshua Romirowsky, Esq. (215-575-2742 or jhromirowsky@mdwcg.com)
Ohio
An Agricultural Society's Demolition Derby Rough Truck Competition Was Not A Governmental Function And Could Not Seek Protection Under Sovereign Immunity For A Political Subdivision.
Devaux v. Albrecht Trucking Co., 2010 Ohio 1249 (Ohio Ct. App. March 29, 2010)
This action arises out of a personal injury claim for sustained injuries. The trucking company constructed an obstacle course for a demolition derby-type rough competition at a fair hosted by the agricultural society. The family members filed suit against the trucking company and the agricultural society due to a competitor's injury. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's denial of the defendants' motion for summary judgment based on assumption of the risk and sovereign immunity. Without addressing the assumption of the risk argument, the appellate court held that the trial court did not err by failing to grant summary judgment in favor of the trucking company and the agricultural society, as conducting a rough truck competition constituted a proprietary rather than governmental function. Therefore, the agricultural society was not immune from suit for injuries caused by the negligent acts of its employees under R.C. 2744.02(B)(2).
Pennsylvania
As A Matter Of First Impression, The Commonwealth Court Held That The Philadelphia Parking Authority Failed To Comply With Proper Administrative Procedure In Accordance With The Commonwealth Documents Law In Enforcing A Taxi Cab Regulation.
Germantown Cab Co. v. Philadelphia Parking Auth., 993 A.2d 993 (Pa. Cmwlth. Ct. April 28, 2010)
An inspector for the Authority encountered one of the cab company's taxicabs while it was dropping off a passenger and noted that the inspection sticker had expired, both front tires were bald, and the right rear door was missing its rubber gasket. The Authority imposed sanctions because it found that those problems had violated the Authority's taxicab regulation. The cab company challenged the adjudication as invalid as a matter of law because the regulation in question had not been promulgated in accordance with the Commonwealth Documents Law and, as such, was unenforceable. The court explained that when promulgating a regulation, an agency must comply with the requirements set forth in the Commonwealth Documents Law, the Commonwealth Attorneys Act, and the Regulatory Review Act. Regulations promulgated in accordance with those requirements have the force and effect of law. A regulation not promulgated in accordance with the statutory requirements will be declared a nullity. The court agreed that the Authority failed to follow the Commonwealth Documents Law, 45 Pa.C.S. §§ 501-907, and, therefore, the Authority's adjudication, imposing a $1,735 fine and suspension, was a nullity.
Septa Was Immune From Liability Under The Sovereign Immunity Act For Injuries Claimed While Bus Was Temporarily Stopped And Not In "Operation."
Hastings v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Trans. Auth., PICS Case No. 10-1827 (Ct. Comm. Pls. April 13, 2010 (Massiah-Jackson, J.)
The plaintiffs were passengers on a bus owned by SEPTA when it was struck by a hit-and-run truck while it was stopped and discharging other passengers. Both plaintiffs claim injuries as a result of the impact. Because the bus was temporarily stopped, SEPTA was immune from liability under the Sovereign Immunity Act as it was not "operating" the bus at the time it was struck by a hit-and-run truck. The court held that because the temporary stop of the bus on its route was connected to the discharge of passengers, the plaintiffs were not injured while the bus was in operation.
