The Pennsylvania Tort Claims Act provides immunity to certain classes of entities. Certain entities have historically been deemed to be within the class entitled to the immunity afforded by the Act. For example, volunteer fire departments have been entitled to immunity so long as they meet a two-part test established by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Guinn v. Alburtis Fire Company, 531 Pa. 500, 501 (1992): 1) whether the fire company was created pursuant to relevant law, and 2) whether the fire department is legally recognized as the official fire company for a political subdivision. That immunity, once gained, is extended to the fire company even when it is not directly involved in fire fighting activities.

That immunity was, potentially, expanded further in the matter of Christy v. Cranberry Voluntary Ambulance Corps., Inc., 579 Pa. 404 (2004). In that case, the plaintiff filed suit against a paramedic and Cranberry Ambulance, alleging that he suffered more significant injuries following a heart attack due to the defendants’ failure to administer nitroglycerine during hospital transport. The Supreme Court reviewed the Commonwealth Court’s decision that the ambulance company was not entitled to immunity under the Tort Claims Act.

The Supreme Court held that the lower court had used the wrong legal standard in determining whether the ambulance company was entitled to immunity. The case was remanded to the Commonwealth Court for further proceedings to determine whether the ambulance company met the nine factors the Supreme Court had enunciated:

1) Whether the party seeking immunity was, in fact, a non-profit corporation;2) Whether the party seeking immunity was incorporated/created by a political subdivision;3) Whether the party seeking immunity assisted the political subdivision in meeting the needs of its citizens;4) Whether the political subdivision appointed the board of directors of the party seeking immunity;5) Whether the political subdivision exercised substantial control over the party seeking immunity;6) Whether the assets of the party seeking immunity would vest in the political subdivision should the party seeking immunity be dissolved;7) Whether the employees of the party seeking immunity participate in any benefit plans exclusively reserved to employees of the political subdivision;8) Whether the sole source of the party seeking immunity is derived from the political subdivision; and9) Whether the political subdivision indemnifies and holds harmless employees, officers and directors of the party seeking immunity from claims and liabilities arising in connection with provisions of services.

No singular reason is determinative under this factor test.

What It Means to You

In instances where the defendant has any involvement with the state or the local government, an analysis should be conducted to determine whether immunity applies, and whether the immunity arises from the Pennsylvania Tort Claims Act or the Sovereign Immunity Act. As the Christy case makes clear, immunities no longer simply apply to entities traditionally considered to be municipal authorities.

Immunities provided by statute either entirely bar a claim or limit the defendant’s potential exposure. Therefore, applicability should be considered if there is question as to whether either immunity applies.