Background
Thomas and Michelle Loughery own property at 63 West Broadway in Jim Thorpe. The historic High Street Steps connect High Street and West Broadway and lie partly on the Loughery property, partly on an adjoining parcel, and partly on land owned by the borough. The steps connect two public streets rather than private destinations and have been used by the public for roughly 130 years.
After the borough disclaimed responsibility for the steps, the Lougherys sued. They sought a declaration that the borough owned and was responsible for the structure, relying principally on dedication to public use. A Carbon County judge conducted a nonjury trial and found for the owners on the dedication claim. The record included borough minutes and other documents showing decades of municipal attention, budgeting, reconstruction, repairs, and public statements about replacing the steps.
The borough appealed. It argued that no ordinance, resolution, or other formal council action accepted a dedication and characterized its historical maintenance as sporadic or minimal. It also maintained that the Borough Code gave it discretion to vacate a street or choose the appropriate level of maintenance. The dispute required the Commonwealth Court to distinguish statutory street procedures from the older common-law rules governing property devoted to public use.
The Court’s Holding
Judge Covey wrote for the Commonwealth Court and affirmed. Dedication can be express or implied, and neither an owner’s offer nor municipal acceptance requires a particular form. Long, uninterrupted public use can establish both sides of the dedication. As against a landowner, use for the prescriptive period may establish the public right; as against a municipality disclaiming responsibility, a substantially shorter period may demonstrate acceptance.
The uncontested 130-year history was more than sufficient. The public continuously used the steps to travel between two borough streets. The borough’s own records reinforced that conclusion: council discussed making the steps more permanent in 1912, budgeted for reconstruction in 1977, authorized bids in 1978, and told residents in 2014 that the borough faced the need to replace them. Those authoritative municipal acts showed acceptance even without a single formal dedication instrument.
The Borough Code did not allow the borough simply to abandon maintenance. The responsibility arose through common-law dedication rather than the Code’s procedures for laying out or accepting a privately constructed street. Under Pennsylvania’s Donated or Dedicated Property Act and the public-trust principles it incorporates, property dedicated to public use is held by the municipality as trustee for the public. Because the steps were dedicated and accepted through long use and municipal action, the borough had a continuing duty to keep them reasonably safe for public travel.
Key Takeaways
- Public property may be dedicated and accepted by implication; a formal ordinance, deed, or recorded plan is not always necessary.
- Long and uninterrupted public use can establish a conclusive dedication and municipal acceptance.
- Municipal budgets, repairs, bid authorizations, and public statements are strong evidence that a borough accepted responsibility.
- A municipality holding dedicated property serves as trustee for the public and cannot evade that obligation through general street-vacation provisions.
Why It Matters
Loughery matters to Pennsylvania municipalities and property owners confronting old stairs, alleys, walkways, parks, and other infrastructure whose paper history is incomplete. Modern surveys and record title do not necessarily answer who bears responsibility. A century of public use and official maintenance can create rights and duties independent of a recorded conveyance.
Municipal lawyers should treat historic minutes, budgets, contracts, repairs, and public communications as potential evidence of acceptance. Before disclaiming an aging facility, a borough should determine whether its predecessors repeatedly exercised authority over it and whether the public has relied on continuous access. Abutting owners, meanwhile, should document the route’s public function and the municipality’s course of conduct rather than focusing only on the current property line.
The published ruling also connects common-law dedication to Pennsylvania’s public-trust framework. Once dedication and acceptance are established, the municipality is not merely a volunteer that may stop maintaining the property at will. It holds the facility for public benefit and must follow the law governing relief from that trust. That distinction can determine responsibility for both future repairs and injuries arising from unsafe conditions.