A. Cruz v. PA Officers Ma Donna, Peachy and McCue -- Appeal of: Police Officer Peachey
1748 C.D. 2015
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Jan 27, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Angel Cruz sued three Philadelphia police officers (including Robert Peachey) for battery, assault, false arrest/imprisonment and related torts after an arrest; a jury found Peachey liable and awarded $33,700 in damages, but found the other two officers not liable.
- After the verdict the jury answered a separate interrogatory that Peachey did not commit “willful misconduct.”
- Peachey moved for post-trial relief seeking judgment notwithstanding the verdict (and argued immunity/indemnification under the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act), contending liability requires a judicial finding of willful misconduct.
- The trial court denied the post-trial motion; Peachey appealed.
- The Commonwealth Court affirmed, holding that a finding of an intentional tort (assault/battery/false arrest) can coexist with a jury determination that the officer did not engage in willful misconduct sufficient to bar indemnification under 42 Pa. C.S. § 8550 (following the Supreme Court’s decision in Renk).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Cruz) | Defendant's Argument (Peachey) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a jury finding of intentional tort requires a judicial finding of willful misconduct that defeats immunity/indemnity | The Tort Claims Act’s willful-misconduct exception concerns indemnification only; intentional torts can be found without willful misconduct | Officer argues Section 8550 requires willful misconduct to find liability; without it he is immune/entitled to indemnity | Court held Renk controls: intentional tort liability can exist while willful misconduct (to defeat indemnity) is not found; denial of post-trial relief affirmed |
| Whether the jury’s separate interrogatory finding (no willful misconduct) precluded liability or only affected indemnification | N/A (Cruz opposed elevating mens rea) | Interrogatory proves absence of willful misconduct and therefore immunity/indemnity | Court treated the interrogatory as relevant only to indemnification; it did not negate liability findings |
| Waiver of challenge to jury instructions for failing to require willful misconduct finding | Cruz: officers preserved the issue by arguing for the instruction during charge conferences | Peachey: preserved claim that immunity required willful-misconduct instruction and now challenges trial court’s denial | Court found no waiver — issue was raised at charge conferences and in post-trial motions, but ruled against Peachey on the merits |
| Standard for overturning trial court’s denial of JNOV/JMOL | N/A | Seeks judgment notwithstanding verdict | Court reaffirms standard (abuse of discretion or error of law) and finds no reversible error |
Key Cases Cited
- Renk v. City of Pittsburgh, 641 A.2d 289 (Pa. 1994) (police officer may be held liable for intentional torts yet still be entitled to indemnification unless willful misconduct aforethought is proven)
- Kuzel v. Krause, 658 A.2d 856 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995) (discussing Renk and distinguishing willful misconduct from mere intentional tort in indemnification context)
- King v. Breach, 540 A.2d 976 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1988) (earlier case equating willful misconduct with intentional tort; later displaced by Renk in police-conduct context)
- Reott v. Asia Trend, Inc., 55 A.3d 1088 (Pa. 2012) (standard of review for post-trial JNOV motions)
- Dooner v. DiDonato, 971 A.2d 1187 (Pa. 2009) (same)