Mr. Leslie Turner, the driver of the grader involved, later testified by deposition. Also, there was no ambiguity in the complaint that the allegations referenced the employee who was driving the snow removal vehicle that struck the Zuppos' truck. The pleading, with regard to what agents, servants or employees were involved, was sufficiently specific so as to enable the opposing party to prepare a response. See Commonwealth, Environmental Pollution Strike Force v. Jeannette, 9 Pa.Cmwlth. 306, 305 A.2d 774 (1973). In any event, since we conclude that the trial court erred in denying DOT’s motion for summary judgment, any failure to specifically name the employee is immaterial. 8 . See Holt v. Northwest Pennsylvania Training Partnership Consortium, 694 A.2d 1134, 1140 (Pa.Cmwlth.1997) (<HOLDING>) 9 . The General Assembly amended the provision
recognizing the doctrine reaches even intentional torts such as an employees alleged assault provided the tortious conduct at issue occurred within the scope of employment holding that the commission is a commonwealth agency entitled to sovereign immunity 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