Judge Munley of Federal Middle District Court Addresses Scope of State Created Danger Claims

In the case of T.M. v. East Stroudsburg Area School District, No. 3:24-CV-1465 (M.D. Pa. Dec. 11, 2025 Munley, J.), the court granted in part and denied in part a Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss a personal injury action arising out of allegations that the minor Plaintiff, who was a 6 year old boy with special education needs, allegedly sustained permanent injuries after being allegedly violently beaten by another student on a school bus.

According to the Opinion, the case involved, at a minimum, constitutional claims against the school district and certain school officials, as well as state law claims under the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act (PSTCA). Included in the claims were state created danger federal claims.

As part of her decision, Judge Julia K. Munley rejected the defense argument that the Plaintiffs were required to allege “affirmative acts” on the part of the state actors to meet the legal standards required to proceed on a claim of a state created danger.

Judge Julia K. Munley
M.D. Pa.

Rather, Judge Munley agreed with the Plaintiff’s argument that an awareness of a risk, coupled with acts of omission or failures to act, could render the Plaintiff more vulnerable to harm. The court therefore held that such circumstances could constitute “affirmative misuse of state authority” sufficient to establish a state created danger claim, assuming the other elements of that cause of action are also met. In so ruling, the court rejected the Defendants’ argument that affirmative action is required to support a claim of a state created danger.

The court also addressed the vehicle exception to governmental immunity under the PSTCA. The court rejected the Defendants’ argument that the Plaintiff’s injury must stem from the actual operation of a vehicle in motion. To the contrary, the court ruled that the exception applies even where a state actor is in actual physical control of the vehicle when the harm occurs, such as even when a parked vehicle is involved. Accordingly, the court ruled that the exception could apply regardless of whether the vehicle was in motion.

Judge Munley additionally rejected the defense argument that pain and suffering damages were not available to the 6 year old minor Plaintiff under the PSTCA. The Defendants argued that the minor’s injuries did not amount to a permanent loss of bodily function or disfigurement. In this case, the Plaintiff sustained a concussion, facial contusions and lacerations, and severe PTSD.

Judge Munley found that such injuries did in fact support a request for pain and suffering damages under the PSTCA.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.  The Court's companion Order can be viewed HERE


I send thanks to Attorney Robert T. Moran of the Moran Law Group, LLC in Scranton, PA for bringing this case to my attention.

Court Upholds Assault and Battery Exclusion in Liability Policy Related To Shooting Incident

In the case of The Farmers Fire Ins. Co. v. S.W. Krauss, LLC, No. 2023-CV-5087 (C.P. Lacka. Co. May 12, 2025 Gibbons, J.), the court granted a liability carrier’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings based upon an assault battery exclusion contained in the subject policy relative to a shooting incident that occurred on the insured’s premises.

According to the Opinion, this matter involved an injured party who suffered a gunshot wound after gunfire was exchanged between unidentified individuals who were engaged in an dispute.

President Judge James A. Gibbons
Lackawanna County

The carrier for the landowner filed a declaratory judgment action and asserted that coverage was barred under the assault and battery exclusion contained in the policy. After reviewing the policy as compared to the facts alleged in the underlying civil litigation Complaint, the trial court here agreed and granted the carrier’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.

The trial court also rejected the injured party’s efforts to create issues of fact based upon affirmative defenses raised in the injured party’s New Matter responses to the declaratory judgment Complaint. In this regard, the trial court noted that there were boilerplate allegations in the New Matter pleadings and no factual allegations in support of the same.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.

Motion To Dismiss Granted in Favor of Lyft in Case Where Lyft Driver Assaulted Passenger

In the case of Matos v. Uber Technologies, Inc., No. 23-5038-KSM (E.D. Pa. Feb. 3, 2025 Marston, J.), the court granted a Motion to Dismiss filed by a ride share Defendant in a case where the Plaintiff passenger was assaulted by the driver.

The court noted that, under Pennsylvania law, a ride share Defendant is not automatically liable anytime a driver hired over its App commits an assault.

The Plaintiff was noted to have failed to pled prior bad acts of the driver that should have put the Defendant on notice of the driver’s alleged dangerous propensities as required to prove a claim of negligent hiring.

The court noted that evidence of prior automobile accidents by the driver are not proof of violent propensities.

The court additionally found that there was no independent action for respondeat superior under the facts alleged.

The court additionally found that the act of assault passengers was not within the scope of a ride share driver’s employment.

The court otherwise found that the Plaintiff did not allege facts sufficient to establish a duty to train a driver on something as elementary as not assaulting passengers.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.


I send thanks to Attorney James M. Beck of the Philadelphia office of the Reed Smith law firm for bringing this case to my attention.

The Dangers of Store Checkout Lines

In the case of Kovalev v. Wal-Mart, Inc., No. 2:2022-CV-1217 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 11, 2022 Quinones Alejandro, J.), the court granted a F.R.C.P. 12(b)(6)Motion to Dismiss in part and denied it in part in a premises liability case.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff was allegedly injured when he was standing in a checkout line and a customer behind him started hitting the Plaintiff with her shopping cart while shouting "move the line."  The Plaintiff alleged, in part, that, even though security personnel had the ability to observe the incident via real-time surveillance in a security room several feet away, no one came to the aid of the Plaintiff at the time of the incident.    

After suit was initiated, the Defendant store filed a Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss on various grounds.

The Plaintiff's claims against Wal-Mart for assault and battery were dismissed given the lack of any facts to support any allegations that the store intentionally harmed the Plaintiff.  Nor were there any facts to support an allegation that Wal-Mart was liable for the intentional acts of another patron in the store.

The court found that the Plaintiff’s claim that the store was negligent in failing to have sufficient security to prevent its customers from assaulting other customers did state a valid cause of action.  Here, the Plaintiff alleged that he was a business invitee of the store and that the store was negligent in protecting him from the intentional or criminal acts of a third person within the store.

However, the court also found that a negligence duty to provide security within a commercial establishment does not create a special relationship that would support a separate claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress. The court noted that such relationships exist only in extremely limited circumstances.

The court dismissed the Plaintiff's separate claim for "gross negligence" after finding that there is no separate cause of action for gross negligence recognized under Pennsylvania law.  

The court additionally found that negligence per se is not an independent cause of action.

In contrast, the court in this matter additionally ruled that there is civil cause of action recognized in Pennsylvania for recklessn endangerment. 

The court also ruled that, absent a civil cause of action for a particular act, there can be no cause of action for civil conspiracy to commit that act. The court also found that a negligence claim is not an intentional or criminal act that could support a separate civil conspiracy claim.

Lastly, the court also found that physical and emotional injuries do not support a cause of action under the Unfair Trade Practices & Consumer Protection Law, as that cause of action is limited to losses of money or property.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.  The Court's compantion Order can be viewed HERE.


I send thanks to Attorney James M. Beck of the Philadelphia office of the Reed Smith law firm for bringing this case to my attention.

Summary Judgment Granted In Favor of Police Officer on Civil Rights Excessive Force and Battery Claims

In the case of Fuller v. Narkin, No. 2:16-CV-00995-GAM (E.D. Pa. Aug. 11, 2022 McHugh, J.), the court dismissed the Plaintiff’s excessive force claims arising from a policy shooting incident.

According to the Opinion, the suspect had led the police on a high-speed chase and, when cornered by the police officers, the suspect attempted to drive at the officer who then discharged his weapon.

The Defendant police officer moved for summary judgment on the excessive force and battery claims filed against him by the Plaintiff. The court granted the motion. 

The court ruled that the police officer correctly interpreted the suspect’s actions as a threat to potentially run the police officer in a further attempt to evade capture. According to the record, the suspect himself even admitted that he was attempting to continue driving his tractor trailer when the police officer discharged his weapon.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.


Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Sept. 8, 2022).

Fly the Friendly Skies?

There have been quite a few stories of fights in passenger airplanes as air flight begins to pick up again.  That, of course, leads to litigation in some cases.

In the case of J.D. v. Price, No. 2:20-CV-749 (W.D. Pa. Nov. 3, 2021 Stickman, J.), the court denied summary judgment after finding that an airline owes a duty to a passenger to prevent an assault by another passenger who was obviously intoxicated when that passenger boarded the aircraft.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.

I send thanks to Attorney James M. Beck of the Philadelphia office of the Reed Smith law firm for bringing this case to my attention.

Source of Image: Photo by Sourav Mishra from Pexels.com.

Judge Mannion of Federal Middle District Court Addresses Section 1983 Claims Relative to Police Entry into House in Response to Domestic Disturbance

In the case of Cost v. Borough of Dickson City, No. 3:-cv-1494 (M.D. Pa. Oct. 15, 2020 Mannion, J.), the court addressed summary judgment motions filed by a municipality and Defendant police officers in a §1983 Civil Rights litigation. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part. 

According to the Opinion, the case arose out of a police response to a domestic disturbance. 

 The Defendant police officers asserted that they had knocked on the front door of the home numerous occasions to no response. The officers testified that, based upon the details of the 911 call, which included a notation that children were screaming, and given that, when the officers arrived on the scene and heard yelling and heard a female shouting the word “stop” inside of the residence, and given that everything then became quiet when they approached the front door, the officers eventually forced a door open after which certain individuals, including one of the Plaintiffs, were arrested. 

It was then determined that the disturbance involved an argument with the daughter of the family over a cell phone. 

After one of the Plaintiffs identified themselves within the home, that Plaintiff was released. The other Plaintiff refused to identify himself and was put in the police car to be transported to a processing center. That person was placed under arrest for Disorderly Conduct. Upon arrival at the processing center, that Plaintiff then identified himself and was released. Thereafter, a citation issued to that Plaintiff was dismissed after the officer failed to appear at the hearing. 

The Plaintiffs thereafter brought suit against the various Defendants with each Plaintiff alleging an unlawful search and seizure claim under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment, a Fourth Amendment excessive force claim, a state law assault and battery claim, and a Fourth Amendment and state law false arrest and false imprisonment claim, and a claim of inadequate supervision and training by the borough. The Plaintiff who had been taken for processing also alleged Fourth Amendment and state law malicious prosecution claims. 

After reviewing the current status of the law on these types of claims, the court granted the motions at issue in part and denied them in part. 

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK. 

I send thanks to Attorney Patrick J. Murphy of the Scranton office of the Bardsley Benedict & Cholden, LLP law firm for bringing this case to my attention.