Motorcycle operator, as member of general population using city streets, injured in collision with pedestrian crossing the street, did not assert valid constitutional claim against City under state-created danger theory.

The plaintiff was injured driving his motorcycle in Philadelphia when he collided with a woman who was attempting to traverse a twelve-lane boulevard after dismounting a bus that had been operated by defendant, Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Association ("SEPTA"). The plaintiff sued SEPTA, the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation ("PennDOT") and the City of Philadelphia under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and alleged a violation of his right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment due to the defendants' alleged creation of an unjustifiably dangerous condition on the boulevard. The claims against PennDOT were dismissed based on its 11^th Amendment immunity as a state agency. The City and SEPTA defendants filed motions to dismiss, which were granted by the district court. The district court concluded that the plaintiff failed to state any claims under the state-created danger theory as there did not exist any special relationship between the state and the plaintiff, such that the plaintiff was a foreseeable victim of the state's acts in a tort sense. The plaintiff was neither a specific individual placed in danger nor a member of a discrete class of persons subjected to the potential harm brought about by the state's actions. He was merely a member of the general public. A policy directed at the public in general, such as a borough's failure to maintain its streets, is not a state-created danger theory because no special relationship is involved. The plaintiff made no demonstration that he was in a discrete class of persons subject to foreseeable harm as a result of SEPTA's or the City of Philadelphia's acts. The plaintiff—as an every-day user of the boulevard—was not in a special relationship with the state or its municipalities or agencies, such that he was rendered a "foreseeable victim" by the defendants' acts regarding the street or bus services.

Case Law Alerts, 3rd Quarter 2013