From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Staley v. Commonwealth

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
Dec 14, 1977
380 A.2d 515 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 1977)

Summary

In Staley v. Commonwealth, 33 Pa. Commw. 22, 380 A.2d 515 (1977), we held that, for jurisdictional purposes, the commissioner of the Commonwealth Bureau of Corrections is an "officer."

Summary of this case from Madden et al. v. Jeffes et al

Opinion

Argued June 10, 1977

December 14, 1977.

Sovereign immunity — Jurisdiction of the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania — Appellate Court Jurisdiction Act of 1970, Act 1970, July 31, P.L. 673 — Words and phrases — Officer of the Commonwealth — Director of Corrections — Warden of state institution — High public official.

1. The Commonwealth is immune from suit in trespass. [24]

2. The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania has original jurisdiction under the Appellate Court Jurisdiction Act of 1970, Act 1970, July 31, P.L. 673, over civil actions against officers of the Commonwealth, which encompass those persons who perform state-wide policymaking functions and are charged with the responsibility for independent initiation of administrative policy regarding a sovereign function of state government. [24-5]

3. The Director of Corrections of the Commonwealth is an officer of the Commonwealth, so that actions against such person are within the original jurisdiction of the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. [25]

4. The Director of Corrections of the Commonwealth, as an officer of the Commonwealth, is a high public official entitled to absolute immunity from suits in trespass. [25]

5. A warden of a state correctional institution, having no statewide policy making responsibility, is not an officer of the Commonwealth, and the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania has no original jurisdiction over actions brought against such person. [25]

Argued June 10, 1977, before Judges CRUMLISH, JR., KRAMER and BLATT, sitting as a panel of three. Judge KRAMER did not participate in this decision.

Original jurisdiction, No. 1437 C.D. 1976, in case of Joseph Staley v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Ernest Patton, Warden of the State Correctional Institution, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania, and William B. Robinson, Director of Corrections, Department of Justice, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania. Complaint in trespass in the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania seeking damages for personal injuries. Defendants filed preliminary objections. Held: Preliminary objections of Commonwealth and Robinson sustained. Complaint dismissed as to those defendants. Case transferred to the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County.

Anne Lazarus, with her Bertram M. Felgoise, for plaintiff.

Glenn Gilman, Deputy Attorney General, J. Andrew Smyser, Deputy Attorney General, and Robert P. Kane, Attorney General, for defendant, Commonwealth.

Joseph Goldberg, with him Edwin L. Scherlis, and Frank, Margolis, Edelstein Scherlis, for defendants, Patton and Robinson.


We have before us Defendants' preliminary objections to an action brought by Joseph Staley against the Commonwealth, Ernest Patton, Warden of the State Correctional Institution, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania, and William B. Robinson, Director of Corrections of the Commonwealth, for personal injuries allegedly suffered by him when he fell on the premises of the State Correctional Institution in Camp Hill, Pennsylvania. The Commonwealth and individual Defendants have raised the defense of sovereign immunity.

We note that immunity from suit is properly raised by "New Matter" in a responsive pleading, not by preliminary objections. Pa. R.C.P. No. 1030. Freach v. Commonwealth, 471 Pa. 558, 564, 370 A.2d 1163, 1166 (1977), n. 6. We do not approve of this procedure, but will decide the issue as if properly pleaded.

It is settled beyond question that, under the present state of the law in Pennsylvania, the Commonwealth is immune from suit in trespass. Reinert v. Department of Transportation, 26 Pa. Commw. 283, 363 A.2d 1337 (1976).

With respect to the individual Defendants, our inquiry is divided into two steps. First, we must determine whether each individual is an officer of the Commonwealth, since Section 401 of the Appellate Court Jurisdiction Act of 1970, 17 Pa.C.S.A. § 211.401, gives us jurisdiction over "all civil actions or proceedings against the Commonwealth or any officer thereof, acting in his official capacity. . . ." Opie v. Glascow, Inc., 30 Pa. Commw. 555, 375 A.2d 396 (1977). If a defendant is an officer, we may then rule on the question of his immunity; if he is not, we lack the power to so rule, Schroeck v. Pennsylvania State Police, 26 Pa. Commw. 41, 362 A.2d 486 (1976), and must transfer the question to the court of competent jurisdiction. In Opie, supra, 30 Pa. Commw. at 559, 375 A.2d at 398, we defined "officer" as follows:

Appellate Court Jurisdiction Act of 1970, Act of July 31, 1970, P.L. 673, as amended, 17 Pa.C.S.A. § 211.101 et seq.

'[O]fficers,' for jurisdictional purposes, should encompass only those persons who perform state-wide policymaking functions and who are charged with the responsibility for independent initiation of administrative policy regarding some sovereign function of state government. We do not believe that it was the intent of the General Assembly to give this Court original jurisdiction over cases where local courts can much more conveniently and properly make the determination as to the liability of state employees who function on an essentially local or regional basis, any more than we believe that the General Assembly intended to give this Court original jurisdiction regarding employees performing subordinate ministerial functions.

In applying this standard to the subject Defendants, we conclude that the Commonwealth's Director of Corrections is an officer of the Commonwealth and hence within our jurisdiction. Since we have recently held that all officers of the Commonwealth are high public officials and, as such, are entitled to absolute immunity, Fischer v. Kassab (No. 1174 C.D. 1975, filed December 5, 1977), we sustain the preliminary objections of Defendant William B. Robinson and dismiss the complaint as to him.

It is equally clear to us that the Warden of a state correctional institution is not charged with statewide policy-making responsibilities, and that he therefore is not an "officer" for purposes of our jurisdiction. Since we have no subject-matter jurisdiction over this Defendant, we must transfer the action to the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County for the court's determination of the immunity issue. Opie v. Glascow, Inc., supra; Fischer v. Kassab, supra.

ORDER

AND NOW, this 14th day of December, 1977, the preliminary objections of the Commonwealth and of William B. Robinson, Director of Corrections of the Commonwealth's Department of Justice, are hereby sustained and the plaintiff's complaint is dismissed as to them.

With respect to the Defendant, Ernest Patton, Warden of the State Correctional Institution at Camp Hill, the case is transferred to the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County for disposition of the preliminary objections and for all further proceedings. Section 503(b) of the Appellate Court Jurisdiction Act of 1970, Act of July 31, 1970, P.L. 673, as amended, 17 Pa.C.S.A. § 211.503(b). The Chief Clerk shall transmit to the Prothonotary of said court the record of the above proceedings in its entirety, together with a copy of this Order.

Judge KRAMER did not participate in the decision in this case. See Pa. R.A.P. 3102(d).


Summaries of

Staley v. Commonwealth

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
Dec 14, 1977
380 A.2d 515 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 1977)

In Staley v. Commonwealth, 33 Pa. Commw. 22, 380 A.2d 515 (1977), we held that, for jurisdictional purposes, the commissioner of the Commonwealth Bureau of Corrections is an "officer."

Summary of this case from Madden et al. v. Jeffes et al
Case details for

Staley v. Commonwealth

Case Details

Full title:Joseph Staley, Plaintiff v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Ernest Patton…

Court:Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Date published: Dec 14, 1977

Citations

380 A.2d 515 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 1977)
380 A.2d 515

Citing Cases

Borough of Pottstown v. Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board

In that context, a Pottstown assistant borough fire chief would not be one. See Bass v. Cuyler, 387 A.2d 964…

Madden et al. v. Jeffes et al

That jurisdictional criterion applies to mandamus actions. Mallard Associates v. Pennsylvania Department of…