118 F. Supp. 3d 751
E.D. Pa.2015Background
- Plaintiff Ernest Martin sued over his April 19, 2012 fall from the West Shore Bypass citing excessive force by officer Errington and related investigations.
- Plaintiff alleges Errington tased him while he stood on elevated roadway, leading to serious injuries including liver damage and fractures.
- Plaintiff also claims the Reading City defendants failed to train/supervise officers and engaged in investigatory misconduct.
- Defendants Pavelko (state trooper) and the City of Reading/Reading Police Department moved for summary judgment; plaintiff opposed.
- Court denied plaintiff’s partial summary judgment, granted Pavelko’s motion, and granted in part/denied in part the Reading Defendants’ motion, with Errington's claims proceeding except for certain immunity and tort conclusions.
- Judgment entered for Pavelko, City of Reading, Reading Police Department, Heim, and Kloc; Errington liable on only two aspects: excessive force (in individual capacity) and assault and battery torts, subject to qualified immunity and factual questions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Excessive-force substantiality and reasonableness | Martín contends Errington used excessive force by tasing him in a dangerous elevated position. | Errington argues taser use was reasonable under the circumstances and standard for qualified immunity applies. | There are genuine disputes of material fact; Errington’s use of force could be unreasonable given risk of serious injury; qualified-immunity denial is warranted. |
| Training/supervision liability of City for Tasers | City’s failure to train/supervise caused constitutional harm via Errington’s Taser use. | No deliberate indifference or causal nexus shown between training and alleged harm. | Summary judgment for City on §1983 failure-to-train; no causal nexus shown. |
| Supervisory liability of Heim and Kloc | Heim and Kloc failed to train/supervise; liable under supervisory theory. | Plaintiff fails to show direct link or personal involvement; no basis for liability. | Heim and Kloc entitled to summary judgment; no showing of causal link or policy-based liability. |
| Access to courts claim against Reading Defendants and Pavelko | Defendants' conduct denied him meaningful access to courts. | No denial of a litigating opportunity or loss of an existing case; conduct did not impede remedy. | Summary judgment for Reading Defendants and Pavelko; no denial of access established. |
| Defamation/False light against Reading Defendants | Articles falsely depicted him jumping off bridge, harming reputation. | Reading City immunity under Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act; individual defendants lacked identified sources. | Reading City immune; individual Reading Defendants entitled to summary judgment; no causal link shown. |
Key Cases Cited
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (U.S. 1989) (reasonableness of force hinges on totality of circumstances in seizures)
- City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378 (U.S. 1989) (deliberate indifference standard for municipal failure-to-train claims)
- Scott v. United States, 436 U.S. 128 (U.S. 1978) (context for reasonable officer on the scene, not hindsight)
- Reedy v. Evanson, 615 F.3d 197 (3d Cir. 2010) (evidentiary requirement for IIED; medical evidence necessary)
- Kazatsky v. King David Mem'l Park, 515 Pa. 183, 527 A.2d 988 (Pa. 1987) (competent medical evidence required for emotional distress claims)