matter). In Jenkins, this Court held that the City of Philadelphia was not in “control” of a stray dog that attacked plaintiff under the exception because “[t]he City is responsible for animals in its possession or control .... a stray dog cannot be considered an animal within the possession or control of the City.” Jenkins, 498 A.2d at 488-489. In Herman this Court held that Greene County was not in “control” of horses for purposes of the exception where the horses broke free of their owners dining a County horse pulling contest. The Court reasoned that there is no dispute that the horses broke away from the direct control of third parties. If the horses had not broken away from the control of the third parties, the alleged harm wou ation, 113 Pa.Cmwlth. 572, 537 A.2d 966, 968 (1988) (<HOLDING>). Finally, this Court has rejected the argument
holding that department of transportation did not have control of motorists drivers license because although the department of transportation may have had a duty to recall the motorists license this authority to revoke does not involve physical possession or actual control sufficient to bring the license within the ambit of the personal property exception to sovereign immunity holding that possession of a drivers license is irrelevant to the offense of failing to present a license which is completed by failing to present the license when requested to do so by an officer holding that district attorney had no power during plea bargaining to bind the state department of transportation to forego license suspension holding that department of transportation did not have control over an uninsured motorists vehicle as intended by the personal property exception to sovereign immunity where it failed to physically obtain custody of motorists drivers license and allowed him to possess a license plate holding that officers may question motorists about their license registration and travel plans