Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court Refuses to Expand Exceptions to Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act

In the matter of Gabra v. Borough of Prospect Park, 2026 LX 302776 (Cmwlth. June 18, 2026), the Commonwealth Court reversed a Delaware County Court of Common Pleas Order which partially denied the Borough’s motion for summary judgment. The case involved a motor vehicle accident within a borough park where a driver struck the base of a water fountain and ran over and killed a family member who got out of the car to try to aid the driver in turning around. The borough relied on the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act (“The Act”) which generally provides immunity to local agencies such as a borough from suit. However, the trial court found that the Streets Exception and Sidewalk Exception to immunity applied. These exceptions bear repeating here:

Streets Exception authorizes the imposition of liability against a local agency for [a] dangerous condition of streets owned by the local agency, except that the claimant to recover must establish that the dangerous condition created a reasonably foreseeable risk of the kind of injury which was incurred and that the local agency had actual notice or could reasonably be charged with notice under the circumstances of the dangerous condition at a sufficient time prior to the event to have taken measures to protect against the dangerous condition.42 Pa.C.S. § 8542(b)(6)(i)

Sidewalk Exception waives immunity and allows for a local agency to be liable for [a] dangerous condition of sidewalks within the rights-of-way of streets owned by the local agency, except that the claimant to recover must establish that the dangerous condition created a reasonably foreseeable risk of the kind of injury which was incurred and that the local agency had actual notice or could reasonably be charged with notice under the circumstances of the dangerous condition at a sufficient time prior to the event to have taken measures to protect against the dangerous condition. 42 Pa.C.S. § 8542(b)(7).

The Act does not define Street or Sidewalk.

First, the trial court held that the termination of the borough street onto the pathway where the driver entered the park was indistinguishable and lacked appropriate signage, and therefore the Streets Exception may apply. The trial court also stated that the Sidewalk exception could apply pertaining to the cement walkway surrounding the park Pavilion and adjacent to the park pathway. However, The Commonwealth Court reversed the trial court’s decision and held that the Streets Exception did not apply as a matter of law where there was no testimony or documentary evidence that the pathway was a street, only that the driver thought it was a street. The court noted that a borough ordinance prohibited vehicles from driving in borough parks and that the record showed that “the Pathway’s primary use was for employees and as a short-term access for youth club members loading equipment or items for concessions, a function akin to that of a driveway.” Further, the Commonwealth Court held that the cement walkway was not a sidewalk under the meaning of the Sidewalks Exception, which requires that said sidewalk be “within the rights-of-way of streets owned by the local agency.” Because the Court held that as a matter of law that the Plaintiff failed to establish that the park Pathway was a street, the cement walkway was not a sidewalk within the meaning of the Act.

Comment: In Gabra, the Commonwealth Court rebuffed an attempt to expand the Streets and Sidewalks exceptions to immunity under The Act. Despite the attempts of some trial courts to allow such expansion, the Commonwealth Court’s holdings were consistent with the intent that the exceptions be narrowly construed.