Knox v. SEPTA
81 A.3d 1016
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2013Background
- On Jan. 7, 2007 a SEPTA Route 56 bus stopped to discharge/pick up passengers was rear‑ended by an uninsured driver (George Hill); four passengers were injured.
- Passengers filed eight suits: four against SEPTA, its driver (Manning) and Hill; four separate actions against the Pennsylvania Financial Responsibility Assigned Claims Plan (the Plan).
- The trial court consolidated the eight cases for discovery and trial only; the Plan moved for summary judgment in the four Plan actions, and the trial court granted those motions on April 11, 2011 (no timely appeals were taken from those orders).
- After a nonjury trial the court initially awarded damages to passengers but later granted SEPTA’s post‑trial motion and entered a directed verdict for SEPTA and Manning on July 18, 2012, holding SEPTA immune because the bus was not “in operation” when struck.
- Passengers appealed; the Commonwealth Court (1) granted the Plan’s motion to quash insofar as passengers sought review of the April 11, 2011 Plan rulings (those orders were final and unappealed), and (2) affirmed the July 18, 2012 directed verdict, holding SEPTA immune under governing precedent because the stopped bus was not “in operation.”
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether passengers may challenge the Plan’s April 11, 2011 summary judgment orders as part of this appeal | Passengers urged full merits review and argued consolidation made the cases a single action | Plan argued consolidation was for trial only so each final judgment required a separate, timely appeal | Quashed passengers’ attempt to appeal the Plan orders; those orders were final and required a separate appeal within 30 days |
| Whether SEPTA may assert sovereign immunity to bar uninsured motorist recovery because the bus was not "in operation" when rear‑ended | Passengers: Goldman undermines treating SEPTA as entitled to sovereign immunity; Wright/Love should be reconsidered on policy grounds so passengers can recover uninsured motorist benefits | SEPTA: sovereign immunity applies; vehicle‑liability exception requires the vehicle to be "in operation," and a stopped bus is not in operation | Affirmed: under Wright (applying Love), a stopped bus is not in operation; SEPTA is immune and passengers are not entitled to uninsured motorist benefits from SEPTA; policy changes must come from the legislature |
Key Cases Cited
- Kincy v. Petro, 2 A.3d 490 (Pa. 2010) (interpreting Pa. R.C.P. 213 consolidation options and limits on complete consolidation)
- Wright v. Denny, 33 A.3d 687 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011) (held a stopped SEPTA bus was not "in operation" so sovereign immunity barred uninsured motorist recovery)
- Goldman v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, 57 A.3d 1154 (Pa. 2012) (addressed SEPTA's status for Eleventh Amendment purposes; court declined to resolve Sovereign Immunity Act application)
- Love v. City of Philadelphia, 543 A.2d 531 (Pa. 1988) (vehicle‑liability exception to sovereign immunity applies only when the vehicle is "in operation")
- Lowery v. Port Authority of Allegheny County, 914 A.2d 953 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006) (bus in motion; passenger entitled to uninsured motorist benefits because vehicle was "in operation")
- Paravati v. Port Authority of Allegheny County, 914 A.2d 946 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006) (same principle as Lowery)