102 A.3d 1053
Pa. Commw. Ct.2014Background
- On Nov. 12, 2008 Officer Kevin Devlin, driving an unmarked police vehicle, followed Gregory White after observing what Devlin believed was a drug transaction; Devlin did not identify himself or activate lights/siren during pursuit.
- White rode a bicycle; when Devlin’s vehicle pulled alongside and struck the bicycle’s rear tire (allegedly driving onto the curb), White suffered severe ankle injuries requiring surgery.
- White sued the City and Officer Devlin in negligence; at trial the jury found Devlin negligent and awarded $100,000 in compensatory damages.
- Appellants moved for nonsuit and later judgment n.o.v., arguing governmental immunity under 42 Pa.C.S. § 8541/8542 and that the § 8542(b)(1) “in-flight” motor‑vehicle exception barred recovery because White was a fleeing suspect.
- The trial court denied nonsuit and post‑trial relief, submitted a jury question about whether White knew Devlin was a police officer (Question #7), and concluded the factual record supported the jury’s verdict.
- The Commonwealth Court affirmed, holding the in‑flight exception requires an objective showing that the person had reasonable cause to know he was being pursued by police; subjective ignorance can preclude application of the exception.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (White) | Defendant's Argument (City/Devlin) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Appellants are immune under § 8542(b)(1) (in‑flight motor‑vehicle exception) | White argued he did not know he was fleeing a police officer; thus the in‑flight exception does not apply and immunity is not available | Appellants contended that the statute bars recovery whenever a plaintiff is fleeing police regardless of plaintiff’s knowledge | Court held the in‑flight exception should be read to require that the person have reasonable cause to know he was being pursued by police; factual question for jury supported verdict against Appellants |
| Whether the trial court erred submitting jury Question #7 (plaintiff’s knowledge of being pursued) | White supported submission: his knowledge was disputed and relevant to applicability of immunity | Appellants argued plaintiff’s knowledge is irrelevant and the question improperly invited subjective inquiry | Court affirmed submission: objective standard (reasonable cause) and jury could find White lacked knowledge so immunity did not apply |
| Whether police owe a common‑law duty of care to fleeing suspects (relevant to § 8542(a)(1)) | White argued duty could exist depending on circumstances (e.g., officer conduct, identification) | Appellants argued Lindstrom and progeny establish no duty to fleeing suspects, so § 8542(a)(1) precludes recovery | Court relied on Lindstrom framework but limited it: Lindstrom presumes officer gave some signal sufficient to put a reasonable person on notice; absent such objective notice, the no‑duty principle does not automatically bar recovery |
| Whether judgment n.o.v. was appropriate | White urged denial: evidence supported jury finding Devlin negligent and that White lacked notice he was pursued | Appellants sought n.o.v.: immunity applies as a matter of law and no two reasonable minds could disagree | Court affirmed denial of n.o.v.; credible evidence warranted jury verdict and immunity issue was properly decided by jury on facts |
Key Cases Cited
- Lindstrom v. City of Corry, 763 A.2d 394 (Pa. 2000) (Supreme Court factors for whether officer owes duty to fleeing motorists; concluded no duty where driver is fleeing)
- Kuniskas v. Commonwealth, 977 A.2d 602 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009) (officers owe no duty to fleeing ATV operator; status as fleeing suspect controls)
- Sellers v. Township of Abington, 67 A.3d 863 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013) (no duty to passengers of fleeing vehicle; officer cannot distinguish willing vs. unwilling occupants)
- Lockwood v. City of Pittsburgh, 751 A.2d 1136 (Pa. 2000) (exceptions to governmental immunity are to be strictly construed)