Posts Tagged ‘pennsylvania department of conservation and natural resources’

As a result of the recent Pennsylvania state budget compromise, the Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources recently received bids for the leasing of state lands by gas drilling companies. The leases were for up to 32,000 acres of land in Cameron, Potter, Tioga, Clinton and Clearfield counties. The land is located in State Forests including Sproul, Elk, Tioga and Susquehannock.

According to the DCNR the leases will generate at least $125 million in additional revenues for the State coffers. The leases will also help create jobs. State environmental groups have raised serious concerns over the leases, but DCNR is confident that a balance has been struck addressing all issues.

Dougherty Leventhal and Price LLP represents individual injured as a result of gas drilling related injuries in Pennsylvania. Contact one of DLP’s twelve (12) Pennsylvania personal injury attorneys if you have any questions regarding injuries suffered as a result of companies or individuals related to the Pennsylvania natural gas drilling industry.

On May 21, 2007, in Stoops v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the Court of Common Pleas of Franklin County denied the Commonwealth’s motion for summary judgment in a case involving a fallen tree. The facts of the case indicate that on July 18, 2001, the plaintiff, Robin Stoops, was traveling along a roadway that runs through the Michaux State Forest in Franklin County, Pennsylvania when a dead and decaying tree from the surrounding forest fell and struck his pickup truck causing him serious injury. Mr. Stoops sued the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Conservation and Natural Resources claiming that they were negligent in failing to remove the dead tree when they inspected the portion of forest before a road-widening project begun by a local township. The Commonwealth filed a motion for summary judgment claiming that Plaintiff’s claim was barred by doctrine of sovereign immunity and that the Commonwealth did not have a duty to Plaintiff because it did not have notice of the dead tree.
The Common Pleas court has denied the Commonwealth’s motion for summary judgment holding that the real estate exception to the Commonwealth’s sovereign immunity applied in this case. The Court further held that the Commonwealth had a duty to Plaintiff and that whether the Commonwealth had actual or constructive notice of the dead tree was a question for the jury.

Thomas P. Cummings, Esq.