March 26, 2015

Driveway Immunity Exceptions

 A little known section of Pennsylvania law, the Driveway Immunity Provision, 35 P.S §7210.502 (b)(4)(i) of the Construction Code Act, and 53 P.S.§10508(6) of the Municipalities Planning Code, may allow a municipality to avoid damages in an accident involving a “driveway” under the Act. In a recent case in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Medsger v. Town of McCandless, et al, GD 13-8034, the court granted Town of McCandless’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings after McCandless invoked the provisions of the Driveway Immunity Provision. In short, the Pennsylvania Driveway Immunity Provision states that:

Neither the Department of Transportation nor any municipality to which permit-issuing authority has been delegated under Section 420 of the State Highway Law shall be liable in damages for any injury to persons or property arising out of the issuance or denial of a driveway permit or for failure to regulate any driveway.

 The Driveway Immunity Provision places the burden on the property owner, and not the municipality, to maintain the driveway so as to not interfere with the safe and convenient passage of the traffic onto the highway or roadway. Counsel for Cipriani & Werner successfully used this provision for the dismissal of their client, Town of McCandless.

 A motorist pulled out of the driveway of a commercial establishment and made a left turn onto a busy four-lane state road in McCandless Township, Allegheny County. The motorist crossed the northbound lanes, but failed to see an oncoming motorcycle until the moment of impact. After settling for the insurance policy limits of the motorist, the motorcyclist filed suit against the remaining defendants, including the Town of McCandless, alleging, inter alia, that the design, construction, and maintenance of the existing road and exit from the commercial parking lot were negligent. It was further alleged that the failure to erect traffic control devices constituted an exception to the Political Subdivision’s Tort Claims Act.

In granting McCandless’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, the court relied upon Ling v. Commonwealth, 79 A.3d. 1 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013). In Ling, the court found that PennDOT was immune from suit for failure to regulate a driveway under the Driveway Immunity Provision.

 Although a little known and seldom used provision, the Driveway Immunity Provision can give any municipality under the Act a compelling edge in the defense and dismissal of a suit. In Medsger, the damages were significant. The motorcyclist, having fractured his left leg in four places, underwent multiple surgeries and rehabilitation. He took an early retirement from his work as a police officer, with ten to 15 years remaining in his work life. The special damages for wage loss alone were in excess of one million dollars. Although the township’s liability should have been minimal, if any, the dismissal of the municipality avoided any damage issue and further involvement with this case.

What It Means to You

 Not all fact patterns will lend themselves to the case law and immunity provisions, but they are certainly worth pursing anytime counsel is confronted with a scenario involving a driveway, a municipality, and an accident.

The attorneys at Cipriani & Werner, P.C. have the experience and expertise necessary to defend local and state agencies on all matters, including those that invoke the Driveway Immunity Provision.