Shamnoski v. PG Energy, 579 Pa. 652

858 A.2d 589 (Pa. 2004) · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · September 28, 2004

Summary

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reviewed negligence claims arising from flooding allegedly associated with PG Energy's upstream water-supply dams during Hurricane Gloria. The Court addressed whether the Dam Safety and Encroachments Act and related regulations imposed duties to increase spillway capacity, draw down reservoirs, issue warnings, and protect downstream property owners from storm-related flooding. The Court held that PG Energy was not negligent as a matter of law and reversed the lower courts.

Holdings

  1. The Dam Safety and Encroachments Act and its implementing regulations impose duties directed to the safety and structural integrity of the dam facility, including protection against foreseeable harms resulting from facility failure; they do not impose a general duty to control natural flooding or insure downstream property owners against stormwater unrelated to structural dam failure.
  2. A violation of Section 693.13 does not constitute negligence per se because the statute states a general reasonable-person standard and does not prescribe sufficiently specific conduct.
  3. The evidence was insufficient as a matter of law to establish negligence because the dams did not fail structurally and the homeowners' damages resulted from the natural effects of Hurricane Gloria rather than water released through a dam breach or failure.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Section 693.13 of Pennsylvania's Dam Safety and Encroachments Act and related regulations impose a general duty on water-supply dam owners to control flooding or protect downstream property from stormwater unrelated to structural dam failure.
  2. Whether a violation of Section 693.13 constitutes negligence per se.
  3. Whether the evidence established that PG Energy breached a legal duty and was negligent when its dams did not structurally fail and the flooding resulted from Hurricane Gloria's natural runoff.
  4. Whether judgment notwithstanding the verdict should have been granted.

Disposition

reversed

Cases Cited (12)

  • Phillips v. A-Best Products Co., 542 Pa. 124, 665 A.2d 1167 (1995)(followed)
  • Wenrick v. Schloemann-Siemag Aktiengesellschaft, 523 Pa. 1, 564 A.2d 1244 (1989)(followed)
  • Commonwealth, Dep't of Transp., Bureau of Traffic Safety v. Korchak, 506 Pa. 52, 483 A.2d 1360 (1984)(followed)
  • Adamski v. Miller, 545 Pa. 316, 681 A.2d 171 (1996)(followed)
  • Beaver Valley Power Co. v. National Eng'g & Contracting Co., 883 F.2d 1210 (3d Cir. 1989)(followed)
  • Miller v. Hurst, 302 Pa. Super. 235, 448 A.2d 614 (1982)(distinguished)
  • Sharpe v. St. Luke's Hosp., 573 Pa. 90, 821 A.2d 1215 (2003)(followed)
  • Althaus ex rel. Althaus v. Cohen, 562 Pa. 547, 756 A.2d 1166 (2000)(followed)
  • Sinn v. Burd, 486 Pa. 146, 404 A.2d 672 (1979)(followed)
  • Lucas v. Ford, 363 Pa. 153, 69 A.2d 114 (1949)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 12.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…