Lacava v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority
157 A.3d 1003
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2017Background
- On July 13, 2013 Joseph Lacava injured his scooter when its wheel struck a discontinued/exposed SEPTA trolley rail near 11th & Cantrell in Philadelphia; he sued SEPTA and the City alleging negligence and premises liability.
- A jury found both SEPTA (70%) and the City (30%) liable and awarded $700,000; post-trial motions followed by all parties challenged liability and damages apportionment.
- The City sought judgment n.o.v., arguing (inter alia) that SEPTA, not the City, was responsible for the rail/adjacent 18-inch roadway and that governmental-immunity exceptions did not apply.
- SEPTA moved for judgment n.o.v. or a new trial, arguing Lacava failed to prove (a) an exception to sovereign immunity, (b) a defective rail/real-estate condition, or (c) actual written notice required for the pothole exception.
- Lacava sought leave to amend post-trial to add punitive and civil-rights claims based on alleged post-trial discovery showing prior SEPTA activity near the site.
- The trial court denied the post-trial relief and amendment requests; the Commonwealth Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, granting judgment n.o.v. on several grounds but upholding the denial of amendment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether City owed duty / "streets" exception applies | Lacava: City voluntarily performed/retained maintenance duties and the defect was a dangerous street condition | City: SEPTA is responsible for rails and adjacent 18" under lease-leaseback and Restatement duties do not impose liability on government | Court: Reversed trial court — Lacava failed to establish City breached a duty; City not liable under Restatement/Gardner reasoning |
| Whether defective rail constituted Commonwealth "real estate" exception (SEPTA) | Lacava: exposed/raised rail was a dangerous condition of SEPTA realty | SEPTA: exposure resulted from depressed pavement (pothole), not a defect of the rail itself; so no real-estate exception | Court: Reversed trial court — evidence showed pavement depression caused exposure; rail not defective source, so real-estate exception not satisfied |
| Whether "pothole" exception satisfied by actual written notice to SEPTA | Lacava: post-trial documents and inferences show SEPTA had notice or inspections nearby | SEPTA: no actual written notice shown; inference insufficient under §8522(b)(5) | Court: Reversed trial court — record lacks actual written notice to SEPTA; statutory standard unmet |
| Whether trial court abused discretion by denying Lacava leave to amend to add punitive and civil-rights claims | Lacava: newly produced documents support deliberate-indifference / civil-rights theory and justify punitive damages | SEPTA: punitive damages barred as a Commonwealth agency; civil-rights claim not supported by prima facie evidence | Court: Affirmed trial court — amendment would be futile: punitive damages barred (Feingold) and civil-rights claims not adequately pleaded |
Key Cases Cited
- Yackobovitz v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, 590 A.2d 40 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1991) (City’s voluntary maintenance and Restatement theory can create municipal liability and issues of estoppel/indemnification under lease-leaseback)
- Gardner by Gardner v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 573 A.2d 1016 (Pa. 1990) (Restatement §§323/324A cannot be used to create duties for government in the absence of an existing duty)
- Jones v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, 772 A.2d 435 (Pa. 2001) (real-estate exception requires the dangerous condition to derive from the realty itself)
- Feingold v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, 517 A.2d 1270 (Pa. 1986) (punitive damages barred against a Commonwealth agency)