Background - On November 27, 2013, PSP Trooper Joseph Lombardo, on duty in uniform in a marked car, stopped Shiretta Justice on I-76 for a turn-signal violation and because her license was suspended; he ordered the vehicle to be towed. - Justice and her stepson could not legally drive; Justice waited for a friend to arrive while Lombardo arranged the tow. - After the tow arrived, Lombardo ordered Justice out of the car; she climbed over the concrete barrier and watched the tow. - Lombardo crossed the barrier, a physical altercation occurred during which he handcuffed Justice; she alleges excessive force and sought medical treatment. - Justice filed tort claims (assault/battery, false arrest/imprisonment, IIED, invasion of privacy, abuse of process) against Lombardo; a jury awarded $160,000. - The Commonwealth Court reversed, holding Lombardo was acting within the scope of his employment and therefore entitled to sovereign immunity; judgment for Lombardo was directed. ### Issues | Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held | |---|---|---|---| | Whether Lombardo acted within the scope of employment when he used force and handcuffed Justice | Justice argued the wrestling/handcuffing was gratuitous, excessive, motivated by personal anger, and thus outside PSP authority | Lombardo argued he was performing patrol and traffic-enforcement duties, ensuring highway safety, and using force incidental to authorized duties | Held: Lombardo acted within the scope of employment; use of force was of the same general nature as authorized police duties, so sovereign immunity applies | | Whether sovereign immunity bars intentional tort claims against a Commonwealth employee acting within scope | Justice contended willful or intentional misconduct removes immunity | Lombardo contended sovereign immunity protects Commonwealth employees for acts within scope, even intentional | Held: Sovereign immunity shields Commonwealth employees acting within scope from liability for intentional torts; willful misconduct does not vitiate immunity | | Whether evidence and jury instructions justified denying JNOV on immunity grounds | Justice relied on jury findings that conduct was outside scope | Lombardo argued trial court erred by denying JNOV and rejecting scope instruction and other evidentiary rulings | Held: Court reversed trial court's denial of JNOV as error of law—scope-of-employment determination resolves immunity issue in defendant's favor | | Whether prior internal affairs findings or PSP policy evidence could negate scope-of-employment finding | Justice sought to use IAD findings and videos to show misconduct | Lombardo relied on PSP policies authorizing transport/handcuffing and testified about training and safety concerns | Held: Court did not need to reach evidentiary rulings; policy and duties supported finding that force was not unexpected and conduct was within scope | ### Key Cases Cited Holt v. Northwest Pennsylvania Training Partnership Consortium, Inc., 694 A.2d 1134 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1997) (sovereign immunity protects Commonwealth employees acting within scope, even for intentional acts causing emotional distress) LaFrankie v. Miklich, 618 A.2d 1145 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1992) (discusses employer immunity for employee acts within scope) Natt v. Labar, 543 A.2d 223 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1988) (adopts Restatement (Second) of Agency § 228 test for scope of employment) Minor v. Kraynak, 155 A.3d 114 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2017) (applies scope-of-employment standards consistent with Natt) * Fitzgerald v. McCutcheon, 410 A.2d 1270 (Pa. Super. 1979) (cited for scope-of-employment principles under the Restatement)