Section 1983 Civil Rights Claims Arising Out of a Police Chase Case Allowed to Proceed

In the case of Donahue v. Borough of Collingdale, No. 22-1695 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 19, 2022 Baylson, J.), the District Court denied Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss in a civil rights claim against police officers who engage in a high speed chase that resulted in a fatal collision.  The Plaintiffs also sued the municipality.

The court ruled that, while the Plaintiffs had a heavy burden of proof, the allegations in their Complaint were sufficient to allege a cause of action under a state-created danger theory and other theories of liability.

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


Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Sept. 16, 2022).

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).

Section 1983 Liability for Police Chase Reviewed By Eastern District Court

This is a repeat of yesterday's Tort Talk Blog post -- this time with the Links to the Court's Opinion and companion Order -- sorry about that.

 

In the case of McKenna v. Wolk, No. 2:18-CV-03746-MSG (E.D. Pa. Dec. 29, 2021 Goldberg, J.), the court granted in part and denied in part a Motion for Summary Judgment filed by a Defendant police officer and a city Defendant in a Plaintiff’s §1983 unreasonable seizure and excessive force claim.

According to the Opinion, the officer was involved in a police chase and allegedly caused a collision with a dirt biker that the officer was pursuing.

In its decision, the court found that the Plaintiff had presented sufficient evidence for a jury to conclude that a seizure had occurred. The court also felt that a reasonable jury could also conclude that the officer used excessive force under the circumstances.

However, relative to the claims against the Defendant city, the court found that the Plaintiff did not sufficiently point to a custom of violent conduct on the part of that Defendant.

As such, the Motion for Summary Judgment was granted in part and denied in part.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.  Here is a LINK to the Court's companion Order.


Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Jan. 20, 2022).

Source of image:  Photo by Scott Rodgerson on unsplash.com.

Section 1983 Liability for Police Chase Reviewed by Eastern District Court

In the case of McKenna v. Wolk, No. 2:18-CV-03746-MSG (E.D. Pa. Dec. 29, 2021 Goldberg, J.), the court granted in part and denied in part a Motion for Summary Judgment filed by a Defendant police officer and a city Defendant in a Plaintiff’s §1983 unreasonable seizure and excessive force claim.

According to the Opinion, the officer was involved in a police chase and allegedly caused a collision with a dirt biker that the officer was pursuing.

In its decision, the court found that the Plaintiff had presented sufficient evidence for a jury to conclude that a seizure had occurred. The court also felt that a reasonable jury could also conclude that the officer used excessive force under the circumstances.

However, relative to the claims against the Defendant city, the court found that the Plaintiff did not sufficiently point to a custom of violent conduct on the part of that Defendant.

As such, the Motion for Summary Judgment was granted in part and denied in part.

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


Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Jan. 20, 2022).

Source of image:  Photo by Scott Rodgerson on unsplash.com.

No Subrogation Allowed Against Third Party Tort Recovery Where Heart and Lung Benefits Were Paid

In the Commonwealth Court case of Kenney v. WCAB (Lower Pottsgrove Twp.), No. 845 C.D. 2018 (Pa. Cmwlth. Aug. 2, 2019)(Op. by Leavitt, P. J.), the Court held that there is no subrogation allowed against a third party tort recovery by a Plaintiff in a motor vehicle accident case when the benefits that were previously paid to the injured Plaintiff by the lienholder were Heart and Lung Benefits.  The Court ruled that this is so even if the benefits are paid out of a Trust.

In so ruling, the Commonwealth Court followed the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's decision in the case of Pennsylvania State Police v. WCAB (Bushta), 183 A.3d 958 (Pa. 2018)(Bushta II).

According to the Opinion, this matter arose out of a work-related car accident when the Plaintiff's police cruiser was struck by another vehicle.

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

I send thanks to Attorney Scott Cooper of the Harrisburg, PA law office of Schmidt Kramer for bringing this decision to my attention.

Various Section 1983 Civil Rights Claims Dismissed in Police Pursuit Case

In the case of Cobb-Leavy v. Borough of Weadon, No. 18-1069 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 5, 2018 Shiller, J.), the court granted a Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss the Plaintiff’s §1983 and other claims arising out of alleged injuries sustained when a car pursued by a police officer crashed into the Plaintiff’s building. 

The court ruled that the Plaintiff’s excessive force claim against the pursuing officer failed since there was no seizure as that term is defined in this context. 

The court additionally held that the Plaintiff’s failure to train claim asserted against the borough failed since the Plaintiff did not allege a policy or a link between a policy and the crash.  

The court also found that the police chief was entitled to qualified immunity under the circumstances presented.   As stated, the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss was granted.  

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

Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.”  Pennsylvania Law Weekly (October 2, 2018).

PA Supreme Court Says Police Owe No Duty of Care to Passengers in Fleeing Vehicles (Also--Interesting Comment by Court on MSJ Evidence)

In its recent decision in the case of Sellers v. Township of Abington, No. 97 MAP 2013 (Pa. Dec. 29, 2014) (Majority Opinion by Stevens, J.), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed the entry of summary judgment in a police pursuit case after finding that the police owed no common-law duty to a passenger in a vehicle fleeing from them in a high speed chase.

As support for this decision, the court stated that an injury to an unknown passenger is not foreseeable and imposing a duty upon the police owed to unknown passengers in a fleeing vehicle would be an unreasonable and unworkable burden, that would essentially serve to halt any police pursuits and encourage criminals to flee.  

Also of note from this decision is a statement by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in the last few paragraphs of the majority Opinion in which the court found that there were no genuine factual disputes to preclude the entry of summary judgment where, despite conflicts in the testimony of the witnesses, the police on-board cameras’ video of the incident “blatantly contradict[ed]” the contrary oral testimony offered by the Plaintiff.  

As noted by Attorney James M. Beck of the Philadelphia office of Reed Smith who is one of the creators and writers of the highly recommended DRUG AND DEVICE LAW BLOG, and who tipped me off on this decision, such statements by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court could support other similar arguments.

For example, as noted by Attorney Beck, in the context of a summary judgment motion, not only can valid, contemporaneous video tape evidence be utilized to support a Motion for Summary Judgment despite contradicting oral testimony, but perhaps automotive “black box” information could be utilized in the same fashion to support or defeat such a motion despite testimonial evidence to the contrary on a particular issue.  

Interesting thought.

 

Anyone wishing to review a copy of the majority Opinion issued by Justice Stevens of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in the Sellers case can click this LINK.

 

Justice Saylor's Concurring Opinion can be viewed HERE.

 

Justice Todd's Concurring Opinion can be viewed HERE.

 

 

Source of image: www.setexasrecord.com