By Mike Curley | Published June 30, 2025, 5:17 PM EDT

Law360 (June 30, 2025, 5:17 PM EDT) — A panel of the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court on Monday reduced a $4.65 million verdict in favor of the family of a woman killed when she was hit by a Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority bus down to $500,000, saying the verdict is subject to a statutory limit in the state’s sovereign immunity law.

In the opinion, the three-judge panel found that when a trial court judge reallocated the division of fault following an “inconsistent” jury verdict, placing 85% of the fault on SEPTA and its driver, this placed the verdict within an exception to the state’s sovereign immunity, but also within statutory caps limiting such damages to $250,000 each to the estate of Sheena White and her surviving son.

The panel also nixed the White plaintiffs’ bid for a new trial, finding that because of the damages cap, a new trial could not increase the amount of damages they would be able to receive, making such an order moot.

The suit arose out of a fatal September 2014 collision in Philadelphia, in which a bus turning left struck White and her son, identified as KW, as they crossed the street. KW’s guardian and the representative for White’s estate sued SEPTA, four of its executives, the bus driver, the bus manufacturer New Flyer of America and Roscoe Inc., which designed the bus mirrors. New Flyer settled claims and is no longer part of the suit.

The case was remanded to state court in April 2018 after a federal court judge found that the White plaintiffs failed to plead any violation of their federal due process rights.

At trial, the jury found the defendants liable and awarded $3 million to KW for his injuries and his mother’s wrongful death, $1.15 million to White’s estate for economic loss and $500,000 to Dolores White, Sheena White’s mother, for wrongful death.

The jury apportioned 0% liability to SEPTA’s officers, but 23% liability to SEPTA on their behalf, 2% liability to the bus driver, 60% to SEPTA on the driver’s behalf, 15% to the bus manufacturer and 0% to Roscoe, according to the opinion. The jury had previously been instructed that SEPTA would have no vicarious liability for the officers if the jury did not find the officers liable.

The trial court judge then adjusted the verdict to reapportion 85% of the liability jointly against the driver and SEPTA on his behalf, maintaining the 0% against SEPTA’s officers.

In post-trial motions, SEPTA sought to have the court mold the jury’s damage award to comply with the statutory limit, which was denied, while the White plaintiffs sought a new trial based on the inconsistent verdict, which was granted.

In Monday’s opinion, the panel sided with SEPTA, finding first that under state law, wrongful death damages are barred by sovereign immunity, and the remaining claims are subject to the statutory cap of $250,000 per plaintiff, so only the son and the mother’s estate are entitled to $250,000 each.

As a result, the trial court was also wrong to order a new trial, as any damages would still be subject to the same limit, and the White plaintiffs cannot improve their recovery.

The panel also found that the trial court was wrong to allow the White plaintiffs “novel” theory that the SEPTA officers were outside the scope of their duties, and therefore not subject to sovereign immunity, because they were negligent in allowing the buses to drive using allegedly defective mirrors.

According to the opinion, the exceptions to sovereign immunity are enumerated expressly by the state Legislature, and nothing in the principles of common law that the trial court cited would allow the courts to usurp the Legislature’s function in that respect.

As such, the panel said it would not hesitate to reject the White plaintiffs’ theory that negligence is inherently outside the scope of the officials’ authority, and found that creating such an exception would eliminate all sovereign immunity from any claims of negligence, which was plainly not the Legislature’s intent or the effect of the language in SEPTA’s enabling statute, the Metropolitan Transportation Authorities Act.

Even assuming that the officials may have been wrong to the point of negligence in their decision to use buses with the allegedly defective mirrors, the panel wrote, that would not remove the underlying exercise of official judgment, which falls within sovereign immunity. Instead, decisions concerning equipment safety fall squarely within SEPTA’s official duties.

The judges wrote that the trial court was therefore wrong to award a new trial to resolve the inconsistency between the jury finding the officers 0% liable and SEPTA itself 23% liable on their behalf, as the White plaintiffs should never have been allowed to pursue their negligence claims against the officers in the first place.

The panel further found that the trial court abused its discretion by awarding a new trial sua sponte, despite the White plaintiffs failing to preserve their motion for one, saying the White parties had made a strategic decision at the end of trial to argue for the jury’s verdict to stand as it was and only sought a new trial after the judge agreed to reallocate liability, and as such waived their ability to request a new trial.

The panel added that there was no manifest injustice that would allow the trial court judge to order a new trial on his own, as there was no fundamental right impacted by the jury verdict that needed to be corrected.

Representatives for the parties could not immediately be reached for comment Monday.

Judges Christine Fizzano Cannon, Matthew S. Wolf and Bonnie Brigance Leadbetter sat on the panel for the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania.

The SEPTA defendants are represented by Mark E. Gottlieb and Justine A. Baakman of Offit Kurman PC and Joshua D. Groff of Green Silverstein & Groff LLC.

The White plaintiffs are represented by Steven F. Marino and Joseph Auddino of Marino & Associates PC and Patricia M. Hoban of Patricia Hoban LLC.

The case is White et al. v. McGill et al., case number 186 CDA 2024, in the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania.

–Additional reporting by Emma Cueto. Editing by Rich Mills.

If you’ve been injured due to someone else’s negligence, our Philadelphia personal injury lawyers are here to help. Whether you were in a car or buss accident, suffered a slip and fall, or need a medical malpractice attorney, we fight for your rights and the compensation you deserve.  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.