On November 19, 2014 the Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued a decision in Zauflik v. Pennsbury School District in which the high court found that Pennsylvania's $500,000 local agency limit of liability was constitutional.
As background, Ashley Zauflik sustained severe life changing injuries when she was struck by a school bus owned by Pennsbury School District and driven by one of their employees. Pennsbury School District like all other school districts are considered local agencies and are granted immunity from liability under the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act. There are limited exceptions to the act which permit a lawsuit against a local agency. The applicable exception in this case was "negligent operation of a motor vehicle".
The Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act also provides a maximum limit of liability for a local agency of $500,000. Prior to trial Pennsbury admitted to liability and agreed to tender the statutory limit of liability of $500,000. The Plaintiff refused the offer and the case proceeded to a jury trial whereby the jury issued a verdict in favor of the Plaintiff for over 14 million dollars. Pennsbury filed a post-trial motion to mold the verdict in accordance with the statutory limit of liability and the trial judge granted the Motion molding the verdict to $502,661.63 which included delay damages. The Plaintiff appealed and the Commonwealth Court affirmed.
The Pa Supreme Court granted allocator to review whether the statutory cap was constitutional, whether it violated the Equal Protection Clause and whether it violated the Separation of Powers. The Pa Supreme Court in lengthy analyses which included a detailed history of governmental immunity in Pennsylvania found that the cap limit was constitutional, did not violate equal protection or the separation of powers. While the Court had empathy with the Plaintiff who suffered life changing injuries, the Court opined that it was up to the legislature to change the law not the Court. Accordingly, the Commonwealth Court decision was affirmed which resulted in the 14 million dollar judgment being reduced to $502,661.63.
I recommend that you keep the decision handy in case you have a case involving the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act. The case provides a detailed history of the law and the common law that preceded the statute.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.