DeAugustine v. PennDOT
Opinion of the Court
This wrongful death action arises from an automobile accident which occurred on November 6, 1984, at the intersection of two state highways in Thornbury Township, Delaware County, Pennsylvania. At the time of
We are troubled by the appeal
The law in this commonwealth is quite clear that a township may not be held liable for failure to warn the commonwealth of a missing traffic control sign on a state highway, be it a stop sign, Mindala v. American Motors, 90 Pa. Commw. 366, 495 A. 2d 644 (1985), petition for allowance of appeal granted, 510 Pa. 158, 507 A.2d 322 (1986), a “no left turn” sign, Rinaldi v. Giblin, 70 Pa. Commw. 253, 452 A.2d 1126 (1982), or otherwise, See also, Calvanese v. Lesit, 70 Pa. Commw. 251, 452 A. 2d 1125 (1982) (failure to warn commonwealth that roadway was covered with mud and debris and that sign warning of upcoming curve was obscured by trees); Swank
Plaintiffs contention that this court should have deferred action on the township’s motion until such time . as counsel for additional defendant DeAugustine has entered an appearance and has also had the opportunity to oppose the township’s motion, is without merit. The defendant township clearly has no liability in this action. The most creative arguments that counsel for additional defendant may make are not going to change this.
Plaintiffs further contention that this court should have specified in its order that additional defendant remains on the record as a party to this action, “notwithstanding the summary judgment in favor of the party bringing Dr. DeAügustine into the record,” is also without merit. Firstly, the defendant Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has also filed a new matter cross-claim pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 2252(d) joining said plaintiff as an additional defendant. Secondly, both the township and the commonwealth joined additional defendant within two years from the date of the accident, within the statute of limitations applicable to plaintiffs cause of action. Because both defendants’ allegations against additional defendant include sole liability to the plaintiff, the estate of Carlo Francis DeAugustine,
Although this case involves a municipality, an appeal has been taken to the Superior Court rather than to the Commonwealth Court.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.