action if caused by a person not having available the defense of sovereign immunity. An action shall not be barred and the defense of sovereign immunity shall not be raised to claims for: [Listing eight areas of limited waiver of sovereign immunity containing, inter alia:] “(4) Commonwealth real estate, highways and sidewalks. — Damages caused by a dangerous condition of Commonwealth real estate and sidewalks, including Commonwealth-owned real property, leaseholds in the possession of the Commonwealth and Commonwealth real property leased to private persons, and highways under the jurisdiction of Commonwealth agencies except as limited in paragraph (5).” (Emphasis supplied.) Thus, the Commonwealth concludes that neither Mayle v. Pa. Dept. of Highways, 479 Pa. 384, 388 A. 2d 709 (1978) (<HOLDING>), nor the Soveriegn Immunity Act created new
holding that errors or mistaken belief regarding applicable law did not estop the commonwealth from collecting taxes legally due holding that ujnlike for local agency employees willful misconduct does not vitiate a commonwealth employees immunity because sovereign immunity protects a commonwealth employee acting within the scope of his or her employment from liability even for intentional torts holding that school districts do not share in the commonwealth of pennsylvanias eleventh amendment sovereign immunity because they are not alter egos of the commonwealth holding that the doctrine of sovereign immunity in the commonwealth resulted from a mistaken view of the law by earlier courts holding that the commission is a commonwealth agency entitled to sovereign immunity