In an action arising out of a motor vehicle accident, the plaintiff alleged that a dangerous condition at an intersection in Bethel Township contributed to a December 1, 2020 collision between a sedan and a tractor-trailer. Leger claimed the Township negligently placed and maintained a stop sign on Shirksville Road where sight distance was allegedly only 300 feet rather than the required 500 feet, and that the Township had actual or constructive notice of this hazardous condition. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the Township, concluding Leger failed to present sufficient evidence of notice. Leger v. Martin, No. 253 C.D. 2025 (Pa. Commw. Ct. May 19, 2026).
The Commonwealth Court reversed and remanded, holding that actual or constructive notice under the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act is generally a question of fact for the jury. The Court found Leger produced sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue regarding constructive notice, including evidence that the Township was responsible for the roadway and stop sign, regularly inspected and maintained the sign, had replaced it before the accident, and, according to expert testimony, should have recognized the inadequate sight distance through reasonable inspection. The Court further held that evidence of prior similar crashes at the intersection supported an inference of constructive notice, making summary judgment inappropriate because reasonable minds could differ as to whether the dangerous condition was apparent and should have been discovered by the Township.
