Commonwealth Court Rejects Plaintiffs Efforts to Place the Actions of SEPTA Officials As Being Outside of the Protections of Sovereign Immunity

In the case of White v. McGill, No. 186 C.D. 2024 (Pa. Cmwlth. June 30, 2025 Fizzano Cannon, J., Wolf, J., and Leadbetter, S.J.) (Op. by Fizzano Cannon, J.), the Commonwealth Court reversed a trial court’s Orders following a trial and remanded the case back to the trial court for a substantial molding downward of the verdict.

In this case, the appellate court cut a $4.65 million dollar bus crash verdict by 90% and reduced the award to $485,000.

According to the Opinion, this case arose out of an incident during which a mother and her son were struck by a SEPTA bus while walking across the street. The Plaintiffs alleged that the accident, which resulted in fatal injuries to the mother and injuries to the son, was caused by the bus driver’s negligence.  The Plaintiffs also claimed negligence on the part of SEPTA officers who allegedly allowed the continued use of an allegedly dangerous mirror system on the buses that created blind spots for its drivers.

The Plaintiffs otherwise contended that their claims against the officers of SEPTA were not subject to the sovereign immunity that would ordinarily limit the agency’s civil liability.

The appellate court rejected the Plaintiff’s argument that SEPTA and its officers had acted outside the scope of their statutory authority and were, therefore, not entitled to a protections usually afforded to state agencies under Pennsylvania’s Sovereign Immunity Act.

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

Source: Article – “Philadelphia Appeals Court Slashes $4.65M Bus Crash Verdict By 90% By Aleza Furman of The Legal Intelligencer (July 1, 2025).

Source of image:  Photo by Nellie Adamyan on www.unsplash.com.

Applicability of Jerk and Jolt Doctrine Addressed by Court

In the case of Thomas v. SEPTA, June Term, 2020 No. 1431 (C.P. Phila. Co. Feb. 7, 2024 Powell, Jr., J.), the court addressed the applicability of the “jerk and jolt” doctrine in a case involving a Plaintiff who fell on a SEPTA bus when the bus stopped abruptly and her leg was caught in a baby stroller that was in the aisle.

The court generally noted the jerk and jolt doctrine applies as an exception to sovereign immunity when an individual testifies that they were injured when a car or bus jerked suddenly or violently. Under this doctrine, the Plaintiff must show that the jerk or jolt had an extraordinarily disturbing effect on other passengers or that the manner or occurrence of the accident or its effect on the Plaintiff inherently established the unusual or extraordinary character of the jerk or jolt.

In this Rule 1925 Opinion addressed to the Superior Court, the trial court stated that, in this case, the Plaintiff testified that the stroller caused her to fall after the bus driver slammed on the brakes and the Plaintiff’s foot got caught in the stroller.

The trial court concluded that the jerk and jolt doctrine did not apply and that it was up to the jury to otherwise decide if SEPTA was negligent in deciding whether the bus was safe to operate with the aisle obstructed.

In its Rule 1925 Opinion, the trial court requested the Commonwealth Court to affirm its decision that the jerk and jolt doctrine did not apply and that the trial court had not abused its discretion in denying SEPTA’s Motions for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict entered by the jury.

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


Source: Law.com: “The Legal Intelligencer Common Pleas Alert” (May 15, 2024).

Commonwealth Court Rejects Challenge to Pennsylvania's Liability Damages Caps for State Agencies

In the case of Freilich v. SEPTA, No. 327 C.D. 2022 (Pa. Cmwlth. July 6, 2023 Wojcik, J., Wallace, J., Leadbetter, S.J.) (Mem. Op. by Wojcik, J.) [Opinion not reported], The Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court rejected a Plaintiff’s challenge to Pennsylvania’s liability caps for state agencies.

In so ruling, the appellate court upheld a trial court Order reducing a $7 million stipulated jury verdict entered by a jury against SEPTA to the $250,000.00 liability cap required by Pennsylvania law.

In its Opinion, the Commonwealth Court held that it was bound by Pennsylvania Supreme Court precedent and thereby compelled to affirm the trial court’s Order molding the verdict to conform with the statutory caps under 42 Pa.C.S.A. §8528(b).

In an article on the issue, it was indicated that plaintiffs’ attorney plans to appeal the case up to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

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


Source: Article - “Appellate Judges Reject Challenge to Pennsylvania State Damages Cap” by Aleeza Furman. Pennsylvania Law Weekly (July 6, 2023).

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Rejects Bid by Plaintiffs to Overturn Statutory Caps on Damages Against Governmental Entities

According to an October 16, 2018 Pennsylvania Law Weekly article by Max Mitchell entitled "Pa. Supreme Court Rejects New Bid to Lift Statutory Damages Cap, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court recently rejected efforts by the plaintiffs to overturn the $250,000 statutory damages cap that protects governmental state agencies.

 

On October 15, 2018, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued one-paged per curiam Orders in Freilich v. SEPTA and Schaller v. New Flyer of America denying requests by plaintiffs to have the Court review the issue under its King's Bench jurisdiction.

The one line Freilich Order can be viewed HERE.  The one line Schaller Order can be viewed HERE.