Zauflik, A., Aplt. v. Pennsbury School District
629 Pa. 1
Pa.2014Background
- Ashley Zauflik, a school-student pedestrian, suffered catastrophic injuries when a Pennsbury School District bus accelerated onto a sidewalk; Pennsbury admitted liability and had $11 million in insurance. A jury awarded $14,036,263.39 on damages-only trial.
- The Tort Claims Act caps recoverable damages against local agencies at $500,000 (42 Pa.C.S. §8553(b)); Pennsbury moved to mold the judgment to the statutory cap and offered to deposit the cap pretrial.
- The trial court reduced the judgment consistent with the Act; the Commonwealth Court affirmed on constitutional grounds in a divided panel.
- Zauflik appealed, raising multiple constitutional challenges to the $500,000 statutory cap: equal protection (state and federal), Article III §18 (anti-cap), Article I §11 (open courts/remedies), Article I §6 (right to jury trial), separation of powers, and stare decisis (Ayala).
- The Supreme Court (Castille, C.J.) affirmed: it applied intermediate scrutiny to equal protection claims, rejected challenges under Articles I §11 and III §18, held no separation-of-powers or jury-trial violation, and deferred to the Legislature on the policy balance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Equal protection (public v. private tortfeasor classification) | The $500,000 cap irrationally discriminates against victims injured by public entities (Zauflik), especially where public defendant has large insurance. | The classification is substantially related to important governmental interest (protecting public fisc); Smith and Carroll uphold such caps. | Intermediate scrutiny applies; cap survives as closely related to important governmental interests. |
| Article III §18 (prohibition on legislative caps) | §18’s plain language forbids legislative limits on recovery except workers’ comp; cap violates that mandate. | §18 targeted private corporate abuses historically; Framers did not intend to restrict legislative control over suits against government. | Cap does not violate §18; prior holdings (Smith, Lyles) control. |
| Article I §11 (open courts/remedies) | Cap denies full remedy and violates open-courts guarantee; local agencies are not the Commonwealth so Sec.11’s grant to legislature doesn't apply here. | Sec.11 expressly allows Legislature to direct how suits may be brought against the Commonwealth and its subdivisions; Act is within that authority. | Sec.11 authorizes the Legislature’s scheme; cap does not violate open-courts clause. |
| Right to jury trial & separation of powers | The cap eviscerates the jury’s verdict (96% reduction) and effects a legislative remittitur, invading judicial power and impairing Article I §6 rights. | The cap is a legislative policy choice setting a uniform recovery ceiling, not a case-specific judicial remittitur; plaintiffs still receive full jury process. | No violation: cap is legislative allocation of liability limits, not an unconstitutional remittitur or deprivation of jury-trial right. |
Key Cases Cited
- Carroll v. County of York, 437 A.2d 394 (Pa. 1981) (upheld Tort Claims Act limits under Article I §11; Legislature may regulate suits against Commonwealth/subdivisions)
- Smith v. City of Philadelphia, 516 A.2d 306 (Pa. 1986) (applied heightened scrutiny and upheld $500,000 damages cap; Article III §18 inapplicable to government defendants)
- Ayala v. Philadelphia Bd. of Pub. Educ., 305 A.2d 877 (Pa. 1973) (abolished judicially-created governmental immunity; central to plaintiff’s stare decisis argument)
- Singer v. Sheppard, 346 A.2d 897 (Pa. 1975) (interpreting history and purpose of Article III §18 in context of statutory limits)
- Freezer Storage, Inc. v. Armstrong Cork Co., 382 A.2d 715 (Pa. 1978) (Legislature may abolish a cause of action for policy reasons consistent with Article I §11)
- Lyles v. Commonwealth, 516 A.2d 701 (Pa. 1986) (upheld damages cap against equal protection challenge in cases against the Commonwealth)