Zauflik v. Pennsbury School District
72 A.3d 773
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2013Background
- Zauflik, a 17-year-old, suffered catastrophic injuries including an above-the-knee amputation when a District bus ran over her.
- District admitted liability under the Tort Claims Act for vehicle-related acts; damages trial proceeded to determine damages only.
- Jury awarded $14,036,268.39 for past/future medical expenses and non-economic damages.
- District learned of a $10,000,000 excess insurance policy after the verdict and disclosed it after discovery; no prior disclosure of excess policy.
- Trial court molded the verdict to $500,000 under § 8553(b), added $2,661.63 delay damages to the molded amount, and sanctioned District $5,000 for discovery violation.
- Zauflik challenged the cap as unconstitutional, argued delay damages should attach to the original verdict, and urged stricter sanctions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Open Courts and the cap | Zauflik asserts § 8553(b) violates Article I, Open Courts. | District argues Smith and related precedents approving cap saves government interests and preserves open courts under § 11. | Cap constitutional; not violation. |
| Anti-Cap constitutional challenge | Smith's interpretation of Article III, §18 forecloses caps; cap denies full recovery. | Smith permits limits on governmental liability; cap consistent with Article III, §18. | Cap constitutional under Article III, §18. |
| Separation of Powers | Cap intrudes on judicial remittitur power. | Smith and related cases permit legislative caps; no intrusion on judiciary’s remit. | No separation-of-powers violation. |
| Right to Jury | Cap violates Article I, §6 by diminishing jury-awarded damages. | Cap does not undermine jury's role; precedent upholds cap's validity for governmental entities. | No Article I, §6 violation; jury right preserved at trial. |
| Equal Protection and Due Process | Cap discriminates against plaintiffs against governmental entities; insurance does not neutralize risk. | Cap rests on legitimate governmental interest in protecting the public treasury; classifications are related to objective. | Cap survives equal protection and due process analyses. |
Key Cases Cited
- Carroll v. County of York, 496 Pa. 363, 437 A.2d 394 (1981) (Pa. 1981) (opens immunity questions; supports legislative power to limit when immunity exists)
- Smith v. City of Philadelphia, 512 Pa. 129, 516 A.2d 309 (1986) (Pa. 1986) (upholds cap on damages against governmental entities; open-courts and anti-cap analysis)
- Lyles v. Department of Transportation, 512 Pa. 322, 516 A.2d 701 (1986) (Pa. 1986) (confirms intermediate scrutiny for governmental-immunity caps)
- Mishoe v. Erie Insurance Co., 573 Pa. 267, 824 A.2d 1153 (2003) (Pa. 2003) (reiterates trial-right considerations in constitutional analyses)
- James v. Southeastern Penn. Transportation Authority, 505 Pa. 137, 477 A.2d 1302 (1984) (Pa. 1984) (access-to-courts principle; governmental-notice provision and its relation to rights)
- Germantown Savings Bank v. City of Philadelphia, 98 Pa. Cmwlth. 508, 512 A.2d 756 (1986) (Pa. Cmwlth. 1986) (upholds non-waivable governmental-immunity cap against equal-protection challenges)