The lawsuit states, in using allegedly dangerous mirror systems on SEPTA’s buses, the officers were not acting in accordance with the Metropolitan Transporation Authorities Act’s (MTAA) directive to promote the agency’s business and welfare.

As Steven Marino of Marino & Associates, who represents the plaintiffs, explained, “If SEPTA decides to act in a fashion outside of the powers for which they were granted, my theory is that they forfeit immunity.”

 by Aleeza Furman | Published July 1, 2025

The Commonwealth Court on Monday ordered that a $4.65 million verdict over a fatal Philadelphia bus accident be slashed by nearly 90%.

The three-judge panel directed the trial court to reduce the verdict against SEPTA to $485,000, ruling that the trial court had erred in allowing the plaintiffs to pursue an unusual legal theory that aimed to circumvent sovereign immunity.

And in its 26-page precedential opinion, the Commonwealth 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 the protections usually afforded to state agencies under Pennsylvania’s Sovereign Immunity Act.

While the trial court had described the plaintiff’s legal theory as “novel,” the Commonwealth Court called the lower court’s characterization of the plaintiffs’ arguments “charitable.”

The case, captioned White v. McGill, was brought by the family of a mother and son who were struck by a SEPTA bus while walking across the street. The plaintiffs alleged that the accident, which killed the mother and injured the son, was caused by the bus driver’s negligence, as well as negligence on the part of SEPTA officers who allowed the continued use of an allegedly dangerous mirror system that created blind spots for drivers.

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

Under the Sovereign Immunity Act, state agencies, such as SEPTA, cannot be held liable for most civil claims, with exceptions for specific types of tort actions. Even when the exceptions apply, the damages available to a single plaintiff are limited to $250,000.

The parties in White had stipulated that the plaintiff’s claims against SEPTA and the driver fell under an exception to sovereign immunity for incidents involving motor vehicle injuries, but SEPTA asserted that no such exception allowed the plaintiffs to pursue their claims against the agency’s officers.

The plaintiffs countered that sovereign immunity did not apply to their claims against the SEPTA officers because the officers had acted outside the scope of their authority as the legislature outlined in the Metropolitan Transportation Authorities Act. The plaintiffs alleged that, in using allegedly dangerous mirror systems on SEPTA’s buses, the officers were not acting in accordance with the MTAA’s directive to promote the agency’s business and welfare.

As Steven Marino of Marino & Associates, who represents the plaintiffs, explained, “If SEPTA decides to act in a fashion outside of the powers for which they were granted, my theory is that they forfeit immunity.”

The trial court allowed the plaintiffs to pursue their claims against the SEPTA officers, and a jury went on to award the plaintiffs a total $2 million in wrongful death damages, $1.5 million for the son’s injuries, and $1.15 million for economic loss. However, the trial court ultimately ordered a new trial because there were inconsistencies in the jury’s findings that SEPTA’s officers were not negligent but that SEPTA was negligent based on the officers’ conduct.

However, according to the Commonwealth Court, the plaintiffs’ negligence claims against the officers should never have been allowed to proceed in the first place. The panel reversed the lower court’s order of a new trial.

“In effect, the [plaintiffs] assert that SEPTA and the SEPTA officers must have been acting outside the scope of their statutory authority because they were negligent and negligence is not within their statutory authority,” the panel held. “We agree with SEPTA and the SEPTA officers that recognizing such an exception to sovereign immunity would swallow the rule and eliminate all sovereign immunity from all claims of negligence.”
The Commonwealth Court additionally held that the Sovereign Immunity Act does not permit plaintiffs to recover wrongful death damages, and that the verdict should be molded accordingly. As for the remaining damages, the panel ruled that the rest of the verdict be reduced to $485,000, representing $250,000 respectively for the son and the mother’s estate, minus $15,000 SEPTA had already paid as an advance.

SEPTA, which was represented by Offit Kurman and Green, Silverstein & Groff, declined to comment.

Marino said he plans to seek an appeal with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

“The Commonwealth Court rejected my theory of liability,” he said, “which is a case of first impression that created a theory that permitted recovery despite the immunity provisions of the Sovereign Immunity Act.”

UPDATE:
Attorney Steven Marino filed a Petition for Allowance of Appeal in the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania Eastern District, Docket Number 263 EAL 2025 on July 23, 2025.

If you or someone you know has injured by a Septa bus, Marino Associates can help.  Use the free case evaluation form  or call 215-462-3200 to speak to one of our expert attorneys who will give you immediate answers to important questions.