## Facts

- A minor student rode a school bus owned and operated by a local school district and driven by a district employee.
- The bus stopped to let the student off near his home on a rainy day.
- After the student exited, he needed to cross in front of the stopped bus and then cross an adjacent parking lane.
- The driver initially signaled the student to cross after seeing no approaching traffic.
- The driver then observed a car traveling in the parking lane but could not warn the student in time.
- The car struck and ran over the student while he was crossing in front of the stopped bus.
- The student and his guardian sued the school district for negligence and also sought uninsured motorist (UM) benefits.

## Issues

1. Whether the school district’s alleged negligence fell within the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act motor vehicle exception for injuries caused by the “operation” of a motor vehicle in the agency’s possession or control.
2. Whether governmental immunity barred a claim for UM benefits under the Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law based on the same incident.

## Decision

- The Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed the Commonwealth Court and reinstated summary judgment for the school district.
- The court held the motor vehicle exception did not apply because the student’s injuries were not caused by the “operation” of the school bus.
- The court held governmental immunity also barred the UM benefits claim because the MVFRL did not independently waive Tort Claims Act immunity.

## Legal Principles

- Local agencies are generally immune from damages unless the plaintiff proves a statutory exception applies; exceptions are construed narrowly.
- The Tort Claims Act motor vehicle exception requires injury caused by the “operation” of a motor vehicle in the local agency’s possession or control.
- For this exception, “operation” is limited to actual driving or movement of the vehicle, not broader conduct associated with transportation or supervision.
- Negligent signaling, direction, or failure to warn a pedestrian after exiting a stopped vehicle is treated as supervisory conduct, not negligent vehicle operation, when the vehicle is not moving and does not physically cause the injury.
- A UM benefits theory under the MVFRL does not circumvent governmental immunity; the claim still depends on satisfying a Tort Claims Act exception.

## Conclusion

Because the bus was stopped and the student’s injuries were inflicted by a third-party car rather than by the school bus’s movement, the motor vehicle exception did not apply, and the school district remained immune from both tort liability and UM benefits claims.


White ex rel. Pearsall v. Sch. Dist. of Phila., 718 A.2d 778 (Pa. 1998)