C. O'Neal v. Bedford County and C. Fetter, as Bedford County Prothonotary/Clerk of Courts
179 and 249 C.D. 2016
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Jan 20, 2017Background
- In 2005 O’Neal pleaded to two misdemeanors as part of a plea deal; felony counts were nol prossed, but the Bedford County Clerk of Courts recorded felony convictions in error.
- The Pennsylvania State Police Central Repository relied on the Clerk’s entry and recorded a second‑degree felony on O’Neal’s criminal history.
- In 2014 the District Attorney’s Office notified Prothonotary Cathy Fetter of the error; Fetter later wrote the Repository to correct the record.
- In July 2015 O’Neal sued Bedford County and Fetter under the Criminal History Record Information Act (CHRIA), alleging economic and academic losses from the erroneous felony record.
- The trial court granted defendants’ preliminary objections, dismissed the complaint with prejudice, and (sua sponte) found O’Neal contributorily negligent; the court also treated Bedford County’s liability as limited to the Clerk/Prothonotary office.
- On appeal the Commonwealth Court affirmed that the Clerk’s office (not the county generally) is the proper CHRIA entity, reversed the dismissal based on contributory negligence, and remanded to allow amendment to name the Bedford County Prothonotary/Clerk of Courts’ Office as the defendant.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the wrong defendant named (Bedford County/Fetter) bars suit under CHRIA | O’Neal: naming the county and Fetter was a technical defect; the Clerk’s office is the intended CHRIA defendant and amendment should be allowed | Defendants: county/official naming defects and statute of limitations defeat suit | Court: allow amendment to substitute/clarify the Bedford County Prothonotary/Clerk of Courts’ Office; technical defect remediable (Hall reasoning) |
| Whether a CHRIA duty applies to Bedford County generally | O’Neal: county liable because it employs Prothonotary/Clerk personnel and is a repository | Defendants: CHRIA applies only to criminal justice agencies, not county government generally | Court: County generally is not a CHRIA defendant; liability limited to the Clerk/Prothonotary office (affirmed in part) |
| Whether the trial court properly dismissed on contributory negligence raised sua sponte | O’Neal: contributory negligence is an affirmative defense for defendants to prove at trial, not grounds for demurrer | Defendants: O’Neal was contributorily negligent and dismissal was proper | Court: reversal — trial court erred by raising/deciding contributory negligence sua sponte; court cannot act as advocate |
| Whether an incorrect recording alone establishes a CHRIA violation (negligence per se) | O’Neal: CHRIA imposes duty to maintain accurate records; incorrect entry supports claim | Defendants: mistake was innocent and not actionable under CHRIA | Court: remanded for further proceedings on merits; did not adopt dismissal based on mistake being nonactionable |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Spontarelli, 791 A.2d 1254 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002) (definitional discussion of criminal justice agency under CHRIA)
- Kelly v. Pennsylvania Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 686 A.2d 883 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1996) (court may permit amendment to correct party naming)
- Tork‑Hiis v. Commonwealth, 735 A.2d 1256 (Pa. 1999) (test for whether amendment substitutes same versus distinct party)
- Hall v. Acme Markets, Inc., 532 A.2d 894 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1987) (technical misnaming of defendant may be corrected when proper party was involved in litigation)
- O’Hare v. County of Northampton, 782 A.2d 7 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2001) (trial court must not act as an advocate for a party)
- MacGregor v. Mediq Inc., 576 A.2d 1123 (Pa. Super. 1990) (court may not dismiss on defenses not raised at preliminary objection stage)
- Ballroom, LLC v. Commonwealth, 984 A.2d 582 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009) (standard of plenary review for preliminary objections)