Sellers, C, Aplts v. Twp. of Abington,et al
106 A.3d 679
Pa.2014Background
- In Abington Township, decedent died after a high-speed pursuit involving an intoxicated driver friend of decedent.
- Decedent rode in the back seat; neither decedent nor others wore seat belts during the ride.
- Police pursued the fleeing vehicle; in-car video shows pursuit timing and actions by Officer Howley.
- Decedent’s parents sued the township, Officer Howley, and Lt. Knott for negligence and punitive damages in a wrongful death and survival action.
- Trial court granted summary judgment on governmental immunity under 42 Pa.C.S. § 8541, finding no duty owed to unknown passengers and that Howley acted reasonably.
- Commonwealth Court affirmed, holding no duty to unknown passengers in a fleeing vehicle, applying Althaus factors and Lindstrom framework.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether officers owe a duty to unknown passengers in fleeing-vehicle cases | Sellers argue officers owe duty under common law and 8542(a)(1). | Abington asserts no duty to unknown passengers; §8542(b)(1) immunity applies; Lindstrom/Louthas doctrine controls. | No duty to unknown passengers; immunity applies; summary judgment affirmed. |
| Does 75 Pa.C.S. § 3105(e) create a statutory duty to unknown passengers? | Emergency-vehicle doctrine imposes duty to drive with due regard for safety of all persons. | Statute does not create this duty for unknown passengers; it recognizes a residual public-duty concept. | Statute does not create a statutory duty to unknown passengers. |
| Application of Althaus five-factor test to unknown-passenger duty | Factors support imposing a duty to unknown passengers in some circumstances. | Factors weigh against imposing a duty due to public policy and practical burdens. | Factors weigh against imposing a duty to unknown passengers; no duty found. |
| Whether summary judgment was appropriate given video evidence contradicting witnesses | Record shows passenger presence and possible awareness; issues of fact remain. | In-car video shows Howley behind the fleeing vehicle; witnesses’ accounts contradicted by video; Scott v. Harris controls. | Summary judgment appropriate; video evidence undermines opposing factual view. |
| Relation to Jones, Aiken, Black, Ferguson precedents | Earlier decisions protect innocent bystanders; duty should extend to unknown passengers. | Those cases involved different contexts; cannot extend duty to unknown passengers; 8542 and policy considerations limit liability. | No duty recognized consistent with those precedents and statutory framework. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lindstrom v. City of Corry, 763 A.2d 394 (Pa. 2000) (police do not owe duty to fleeing drivers; public-safety policy factors apply)
- Althaus ex rel. v. Cohen, 756 A.2d 1166 (Pa. 2000) (five-factor duty test for recognizing new common-law duties)
- Jones v. Chieffo, 700 A.2d 417 (Pa. 1997) (innocent third parties may sue when police negligence contributes to injuries)
- Aiken v. Borough of Blawnox, 747 A.2d 1282 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000) (jury must decide substantial factor and superseding cause in fleeing-driver scenarios)
- Black v. Shrewsbury Borough, 675 A.2d 381 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1996) (jury decides if driver's conduct was superseding cause; passengers considered in pursuit context)
- Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (U.S. 2007) (unambiguous video evidence governs summary-judgment factual disputes)
- Seebold v. Prison Health Services, Inc., 763 A.2d 394 (Pa. 2012) (prudential limits on judicial policymaking for new duties; legislature-led balancing favored)