dissenting:
The Majority affirms the grant of the Motion for Summary Judgment, in favor of Brandywine Hospital and all other *97appellees, based on the trial court’s determination that the hospital was an authorized organ donor under 20 Pa.C.S. § 8602(b)(6), and, that all appellees acted in “good faith” and were thus immune from civil liability under 20 Pa.C.S. § 8607(c). From my review of the record, I conclude that the hospital has not established its authority to donate the organs of the decedent. Further, the question of the good faith of the hospital and other appellees is an issue of material fact, which must be submitted to a finder-of fact, rendering the order granting summary judgment improper. I must, therefore, dissent.
In reviewing an order granting a motion for summary judgment, we must view the record in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Dorohovich v. West American Insurance Co., 403 Pa.Super. 412, 589 A.2d 252 (1991). All doubts as to the existence of a genuine issue of material fact must be resolved against the moving party. Marks v. Tasman, 527 Pa. 132, 589 A.2d 205 (1991). Moreover, in summary judgment proceedings, it is not the court’s function to determine the facts, but only to determine if a material issue of fact exists. Godlewski v. Pars Manufacturing Co., 408 Pa.Super. 425, 597 A.2d 106 (1991). Summary judgment is proper only where the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, admissions of record and affidavits on file support the trial court’s conclusion that no genuine issue of material fact exists and the moving party .is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Pa.R.C.P. 1035(b); Penn Center House v. Hoffman, 520 Pa. 171, 553 A.2d 900 (1989). Under this standard, a reviewing court should overturn the trial court’s grant of a motion for summary judgment where there is an error of law or manifest abuse of discretion. Peffer v. Penn 21 Associates, 406 Pa.Super. 460, 594 A.2d 711 (1991).
In the present case, the Majority relies upon Pennsylvania’s enactment of the Uniform Anatomical Gift Act (Act) to uphold the trial court’s grant of immunity from civil liability to the appellees. In order to qualify as a “person who may execute an anatomical gift,” the hospital must be one of a class of *98persons authorized under 20 Pa.C.S. § 8602. This statute, in pertinent part, states:
(b) Any of the following persons, in order of priority stated, when persons in prior classes are not available at the time of death, and in the absence of actual notice of contrary indications by the decedent or actual notice of opposition by a member of the same or a prior class, may give all or any part of the decedent’s body for any purpose specified in section 8603 of this code:
(1) the spouse;
(2) an adult son or daughter;
(3) either parent;
(4) an adult brother or sister;
(5) a guardian of the person of the decedent at the time of his death; and
(6) any other person authorized or under obligation to dispose of the body
Under the Act, those acting in compliance with the Act may be immunized from criminal and civil liability under 20 Pa.C.S. § 8607(c). This section states:
(c) A person who acts in good faith in accord with terms of this chapter or with the anatomical gift laws of another state or a foreign country is not liable for damages in any civil action or subject to prosecution in any criminal proceeding for his act.
The Majority concludes that the hospital was qualified, under the Act, to donate Larry Brown’s organs for transplant purposes under 20 Pa.C.S. § 8602(b)(6). The Majority also finds that the appellees are immune from civil liability, under 20 Pa.C.S. § 8607(c), because they acted in good faith. I reject both of these conclusions.
First, appellees have not proven, as a matter of law, that the hospital qualified as a person who may execute an anatomical gift, under 20 Pa.C.S. § 8602(b)(6). The Majority accepts the trial court’s determination that the hospital was an authorized donor under § 8602(b)(6), stating that there was compliance “with the intent” of the Act. The trial court determined that *99the appellees were authorized donors through reference to the definitions contained in 20 Pa.C.S. § 8601. This section states in pertinent part:
“Person.” Means an individual, corporation, government or governmental subdivision or agency, business trust, estate, trust, partnership or association, or any other legal entity.
While the trial court correctly concluded that the hospital, in the present case, is included in the definition of “person” under the Act, it does not automatically follow that the hospital was “authorized or under obligation to dispose of the body” of Larry Brown. Neither the appellees nor the Majority cite to authority which permits the hospital to qualify, as a matter of law, as a donor under 20 Pa.C.S. § 8602(b)(6).
At oral argument, council for the hospital directed us to 35 Pa.S. § 1092 to support the allegation that the hospital was authorized to dispose of the body of the decedent, as required for donors under 20 Pa.S. § 8602(b)(6). This statute provides only that various entities and organizations, including hospitals, are required to report any bodies which must be buried at public expense, to the Anatomical Board of the State of Pennsylvania. 35 Pa.S. § 1092. Nowhere does the statute state that hospitals are authorized or under an obligation to dispose of dead bodies. Moreover, under a related statute, 35 Pa.S. § 1114, any body which remains unclaimed thirty-six hours after death, falls under the jurisdiction of the Anatomical Board of the State of Pennsylvania. If the Anatomical Board declines jurisdiction over the body, 35 Pa.S. § 1092 directs that the body will be commended to the county commissioners or county executive officers for burial at county expense. Nowhere in this Act, entitled Disposition of Dead Human Bodies, are hospitals given authority or placed under an obligation to dispose of dead bodies. See 35 Pa.S. §§ 1091-1123.
The Comment to the 1968 version of the Uniform Anatomical Gift Act gives some guidance in determining who is authorized to dispose of the body of a decedent, under § 2(b)(6) of the Uniform Act or § 8602(b)(6) of the Pennsylva*100nia Act. This Comment states in part: “Subsection (b) spells out the right of survivors to make the [anatomical] gift.” 8A U.L.A. 35 (1968). While this language may not clearly specify who is “authorized” to dispose of a decedent’s body, neither the Majority nor the appellees have attempted to establish that the hospital could be considered a survivor of the decedent.
Various commentators have speculated on the grave public policy implications of state legislatures permitting institutions to qualify as donors under the Uniform Anatomical Gift Act. See e.g. Quay, Utilizing the Bodies of the Dead, 28 St. Louis U.L.J. 889, 897 (1984). Research reveals no case law in this or any jurisdiction in which a hospital has been recognized as an organ donor in the absence of a donation by the decedent or the decedent’s next-of-kin. However, in an attempt to clarify who should hold donor status, the Uniform Act, as amended in 1987, now provides that only the decedent’s next-of-kin, legal guardians, or in their absence, the coroner or other public health official may make an anatomical gift on behalf of a decedent. See Uniform Anatomical Gift Act §§ 3-4, 8A U.L.A. 17-18 (1987). See also Note, She’s Got Bette Davis[’sJ Eyes: Assessing the Nonconsensual Removal of Cadaver Organs Under the Takings and Due Process Clauses, 90 Columbia L.R. 528, 537 (1990). This amendment has yet to be adopted by the legislature in this Commonwealth.
In the absence of both statutory and common-law precedent, I am unable to conclude that the hospital has established that it was an authorized donor, as described in Pennsylvania’s Act. 20 Pa.C.S. § 8602(b)(6).
However, even if I were to conclude that the hospital was authorized to dispose of the body of the decedent, the disposition of this case through the grant of a motion for summary judgment would remain improper, as the question of whether the appellees have acted in good faith, so as to be immune from liability under 20 Pa.C.S. § 8607(c), is one of material fact which must be submitted to the jury.
A review of the record reveals the following facts. On October 30, 1984, the decedent was admitted to the hospital *101with a gunshot wound to the head. The decedent was identified shortly after admission as Larry Brown, with all hospital records bearing the decedent’s name and address. R.R. at 29a-36a. Despite this identification, the hospital referred to the decedent as John Doe, an unidentified person, in its Petition for Consent to Perform Emergency Organ Extraction. The hospital’s petition to the court for removal of the decedent’s organs indicates that: “[t]he hospital has made every available effort first to determine the identity of the patient and then to locate next of kin, but all efforts have been to no avail.” R.R. at 16a. Yet, no evidence has been produced by the hospital to indicate that it made any effort to contact the decedent’s next-of-kin, prior to seeking a court order to donate the decedent’s organs.
My review of the record indicates that the hospital represented to the court, when seeking permission to remove the decedent’s organs that:
... What you need to do is allow them to extract the organs so that the donees may have the benefit thereof. I cannot cite you specific authority that will allow you to do that, but I would certainly think you have the general powers to do that.
N.T., October 31, 1984, at 4. The court, based on the representations of the hospital, granted the order permitting the removal of the decedent’s organs. Order of Court, October 31, 1984. The harvesting of the decedent’s organs was subsequently performed. Now, the hospital and other appellees seek to rely on the Act and the immunity provided under 20 Pa.C.S. § 8607(c).
The Majority asserts that Larry Brown’s family members were “unavailable”. However, within 48 hours of the decedent’s admission, Virginia Brown, his sister, was present in the hospital. Moreover, when Virginia arrived at the hospital, the hospital vice president, despite the fact that the organs had been removed without permission several hours earlier, attempted to have her sign a consent to donate her brother’s organs. Deposition of Phillippe Oullette, May 22, 1989, at 126. These facts belie a finding of good faith, as a matter of law.
*102The Majority recognizes that whether a person or an entity has acted in good faith is generally a question of fact for the jury. Thus, in a motion for summary judgment, it is only when the facts are so clear that reasonable minds cannot differ, that a decision may be made, as a matter of law. See Hayward v. Medical Center of Beaver County, 530 Pa. 320, 608 A.2d 1040 (1992). I conclude that reasonable minds could, and do, differ as to whether the appellees acted in good faith. Therefore, this question must be submitted to the finder-of-fact.
The question of whether a person has acted in good faith has been held to be an issue of material fact and an improper one for disposition through summary judgment. See e.g. Banker v. Valley Forge Insurance Co., 401 Pa.Super. 367, 585 A.2d 504 (1991), alloc. denied, 529 Pa. 615, 600 A.2d 532 (1991). In Banker, we reversed the grant of a motion for summary judgment, stating that the determination of whether an insurance company had breached its duty of good faith and fair dealing was an issue of material fact. Id. 401 Pa.Super. at 378-379, 585 A.2d at 510-511.
The issue of whether a person has acted in good faith so as to qualify for immunity under § 8607 of the Act is one of first impression in this Commonwealth. In this jurisdiction, there has yet to be a determination as to whether the question of good faith, under the Act, should be deemed to be a matter of fact or a matter of law. There is also an ostensible split of authority existing among other jurisdictions that have considered this issue. The Wisconsin Supreme Court has addressed the issue of good faith, under the Uniform Act, in Williams v. Hoffman, 66 Wis.2d 145, 223 N.W.2d 844 (1974). In that case, the court described good faith as a term which prescribes a general code of conduct, stating: “[w]hether an individual acted in good faith is a question that can only be answered following a careful analysis of the facts in a particular case.” Id. at 153, 223 N.W.2d at 848. I would adopt this analysis of the requirement of good faith under the Act, since it follows the traditional view held by the courts in this Commonwealth, that questions of good faith are for the jury.
*103The Majority relies on Nicoletta v. Rochester Eye and Human Parts Bank, Inc., 136 Misc.2d 1065, 519 N.Y.S.2d 928 (1987), a New York Supreme Court case, to support its contention that good faith, under the Uniform Act, can be decided as a matter of law. There, after the death of Peter Nicoletta, his “wife” donated his eyes for transplant purposes. However, after the anatomical gift had been made, the woman who purported to be Nicoletta’s wife was discovered to be not his legal wife, but a woman with whom the decedent had cohabited for ten years. The father of the decedent sued the hospital to recover for the emotional/psychological injuries he suffered due to the unauthorized removal of his son’s eyes. The court recognized the general rule articulated in Williams v. Hoffman, which defines questions of good faith as issues of fact. Id. at 1068-69, 519 N.Y.S.2d at 931. Nonetheless, the Nicoletta court affirmed the order granting summary judgment in favor of the hospital on the ground that it was undisputed that the hospital followed the letter of the Anatomical Gift Act, authorizing a spouse as the first alternative donor absent a donation by the decedent. The court, there, held that under those particular facts, and, in the absence of notice as to the true identity of the woman, it would frustrate the purpose of the Uniform Act and would place unreasonable demands upon the hospital to require further investigation, by the hospital, into the identity of the purported spouse.
The Nicoletta legal analysis, adopted by the Majority, cannot be applied in the present case, as the facts in Nicoletta are vastly different from those before us. Here, the hospital and its staff identified the decedent as a potential donor prior to attempting contact with any family member. The hospital, and other appellees, did not rely on the consent of an authorized donor under the Anatomical Gift Act. Rather, the hospital, failing to search for or contact the decedent’s next-of-kin, sought to place itself in the role of an authorized donor. This is not a case, such as Nicoletta, where a clear attempt to follow the Act had been made. Moreover, I am unable to conclude that an undue burden would be placed on the hospital if it were required to attempt notification of family members *104prior to assuming the role of alternate donor of the decedent’s organs. The “good faith” of the appellees, in the present case, is not so clear and undisputed that a court could pass on it as a matter of law. Here, the dispositive question, whether the appellees conducted themselves in good faith, is a highly-contested and complex issue of material fact, which we are required to submit to the finder-of-fact. See Banker, supra; Commonwealth ex rel. Broscious v. Fern, 418 Pa.Super. 34, 613 A.2d 17 (1992).
Accordingly, I dissent.