dissenting.

I dissent. This Court has no power to abrogate Article I, § 11 of the Pennsylvania Constitution. See Mayle v. Pennsylvania Department of Highways, 479 Pa. 384, 388 A.2d 709 (1978) (Dissenting Opinion by O’Brien, J.).

EAGEN, C. J., and POMEROY, J., join in this dissenting opinion.

dissenting.

For the reasons set forth in my dissenting opinion in Mayle v. Pennsylvania Department of Highways, 479 Pa. 384, 408, 388 A.2d 709, 721 (1978), I dissent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Appellants Pamela Porr and Tamra Porr, by their parents, brought an action in trespass against the Department of State Police and the Department of General Services, two agencies of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and appellees here, and one official of each agency. The complaint asked for damages to compensate plaintiffs for injuries allegedly incurred when a state police vehicle struck the car in which appellants were riding. The Commonwealth Court dismissed the complaint against appellees on the grounds that, as agencies of the Commonwealth, appellees were protected by the sovereign immunity of the Commonwealth.1

We have this day abrogated the doctrine of sovereign immunity. Mayle v. Pennsylvania Department of Highways, 479 Pa. 384, 388 A.2d 709 (1978). We therefore reverse the order of the Commonwealth Court and remand for further proceedings.2

Order reversed and case remanded.