HARRISBURG – The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania has upheld the granting of summary judgment to the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA) which declared it immune from suit from a man who said he was assaulted on a SEPTA train by two other passengers in Philadelphia in 2019.
Commonwealth Court judges Christine Fizzano Cannon, Ellen Ceisler and Lori A. Dumas affirmed the judgment to SEPTA and against plaintiff Jullian De’Pierre, on Aug. 8. Ceisler authored the Court’s opinion in this matter.
“The underlying facts in this matter are not disputed. On May 26, 2019, while traveling on SEPTA’s Market-Frankford elevated subway train, De’Pierre sustained bruising injuries to his head and face following an assault by several individuals. De’Pierre reported the assault to SEPTA police after he exited the train,” Ceisler said.
“On Feb. 11, 2021, De’Pierre filed a negligence action against SEPTA asserting that it negligently failed to provide adequate safety measures on its train, including security, as well as equipment for notifying the train operator of an emergency or danger to SEPTA’s passengers, safety and monitoring devices, or a call system for reporting emergencies on a train. De’Pierre also alleged that SEPTA negligently trained and supervised its train operator, whom SEPTA negligently entrusted to operate the train. SEPTA generally denied the allegations and asserted sovereign immunity as a defense.”
Depositions revealed De’Pierre had become suspicious of two fellow passengers on the SEPTA Market-Frankford Line train and photographed them, leading them to harass and subsequently assault him to the point of unconsciousness. After he came to and exited the train, he reported the assault to SEPTA authorities.
SEPTA Police Officer Charles Lawson also mentioned in a deposition that each train car is equipped with about 10 surveillance cameras, which cover a large percentage, but not all, of the given train car. When a crime is reported from one of SEPTA’s trains, video footage captured by the train’s cameras is “automatically” downloaded when the train returns to the station, and the footage is retrieved by the investigating SEPTA police detective.
On March 29, 2022, SEPTA filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing it was protected by sovereign immunity under the Sovereign Immunity Act and that De’Pierre could not assert a claim for the criminal acts of a third-party.
The Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas granted SEPTA’s motion, after concluding that De’Pierre’s claim did not fall within one of the enumerated exceptions to sovereign immunity set forth in Subsection 8522(b) of the Sovereign Immunity Act.
Though De’Pierre maintained that his negligence claim was covered by the motor vehicle exception in Subsection 8522(b)(1) of the Act, the trial court noted that De’Pierre’s injuries were indisputably the result of an assault perpetrated by two SEPTA passengers and not by any movement of the SEPTA train or its moving parts.
Furthermore, the trial court rejected De’Pierre’s argument that SEPTA should have reasonably foreseen the May 26, 2019 assault. Although SEPTA train operator Adam Washington testified that criminal acts frequently occur on SEPTA trains, there was no indication that De’Pierre would be assaulted that day.
De’Pierre then appealed to the Commonwealth Court, arguing that SEPTA was not immune from suit and could have reasonably foreseen the assault on his person.
But the appellate court disagreed.
“Instantly, De’Pierre has failed to demonstrate that his injuries caused by a negligent act involving movement of the SEPTA train or the movement of its parts. His injuries stemmed solely from the assault perpetuated by other SEPTA passengers. Accordingly, the trial court properly concluded that sovereign immunity was not waived pursuant to the motor vehicle exception in Subsection 8522(b)(1) of the Sovereign Immunity Act,” Ceisler said.
“Next, De’Pierre argues that the trial court erred in concluding that SEPTA could not have reasonably anticipated the May 26, 2019 assault. We must reject De’Pierre’s argument under the facts presented [and] we disagree with De’Pierre that an issue of material fact exists, as De’Pierre’s injuries were indisputably caused by other passengers on the train and not by the train itself, or by any movement of the train or its moving parts. Instantly, while SEPTA’s own witnesses acknowledged that criminal activity occurs on SEPTA trains, there is simply no evidence to suggest that SEPTA was aware of prior incidents on the Market-Frankford line that would have foreshadowed the May 26, 2019 assault on De’Pierre.”
According to Ceisler, De’Pierre “admitted that, although he was nervous and fearful, he did not use his cell phone to call 911 or attempt to leave the train car, because he did not believe ‘anything was going to happen.’ – and that if “De’Pierre did not anticipate the assault by other passengers, it is difficult to perceive how SEPTA personnel could have reasonably foreseen that specific event.”
“Moreover, while Lawson acknowledged that criminal acts have occurred on the trains of that line, he also testified that incidences of crime are higher in other locations, such as train stations, stairwells, and platforms. Washington’s deposition testimony demonstrates that SEPTA equipped its train with several of the security measures that De’Pierre claims were negligently absent, such as emergency buttons located on either side of each train car that, when used, activate an intercom system facilitating communication between the train operator and the passenger car. De’Pierre’s lack of knowledge that the emergency buttons exist does not render them unavailable or inadequate. Additionally, each train is equipped with multiple surveillance cameras. While the footage from those cameras cannot be observed in real time, the presence of the cameras could deter crime, as well as assist with the investigation thereof,” Ceisler stated.
“Given that De’Pierre’s injuries were solely caused by the criminal actions of third-parties, and not by SEPTA’s negligent operation of the train in which the May 26, 2019 assault took place, the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of SEPTA. Any other conclusion would effectively render SEPTA strictly liable for the criminal actions of a SEPTA passenger, should such conduct result in injury to another passenger. The plain language of the motor vehicle exception in Subsection 8522(b)(1) of the Sovereign Immunity Act does not contemplate such an expansive waiver of immunity. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court.”
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania case 510 C.D. 2022
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com