Does a Municipality Have Statutory Duty to Indemnify Its Police Officer for Judgment Entered Against Him in Federal Civil Rights Lawsuit?

In late 2012, 16-year-old Shane McGuire and friends smashed pumpkins and stacked bricks on the doorstep of the home of City of Pittsburgh Police Officer Colby Neidig. Once Neidig and his family arrived home, McGuire watched the family’s reaction to the vandalism and then banged on the front door and ran away, accidentally tripping over his own brick booby trap in the process. Neidig heard the ruckus and gave chase. Neidig caught McGuire, knocked him to the ground and punched him in the face. Neidig was not wearing his police uniform, nor did he identify himself as a police officer. Neidig called 911 and restrained McGuire until Officer David Blatt, an on-duty City of Pittsburg police officer, arrived. 

McGuire filed a federal lawsuit against Neidig, Blatt and the City of Pittsburgh, asserting excessive use of force in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and claiming Neidig was liable for McGuire’s assault and battery claims. Blatt and the City were dismissed at the summary judgment stage, and the claims against Neidig proceeded to a jury trial. 

The jury returned a verdict for McGuire for all three claims, and the court awarded him damages for said claims in the amount of $235,575. Neidig assigned McGuire his right to sue the City for indemnification under the PSTCA. 

McGuire then sued the City, seeking a declaratory judgment that the City was statutorily obligated to indemnify Neidig under Subsection 8548(a) of the PSTCA, which went to a jury trial. The jury concluded Neidig was not acting within the scope of his duties when he assaulted McGuire, meaning the City was not required to indemnify Neidig under the PSTCA.

McGuire appealed that decision to the Commonwealth Court, which affirmed. McGuire then petitioned for allowance of appeal, arguing that a federal jury’s finding that a police officer acted “under color of state law” for purposes of Section 1983 constitutes and is synonymous with a “judicial determination” that the officer acted within the “scope of his office or duties” under the PSTCA. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania analyzed that a police officer may sometimes act both “under the color of state law” and beyond the scope of his or her employment. 

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania ultimately held that the Restatement (Second) of Agency section setting forth the “scope of employment” test would be adopted to determine if a public employee’s conduct falls within “scope of office or duties” under indemnity provisions of the PSTCA. Further, a determination that an officer acted “under color of state law” for purposes of § 1983 does not establish that he acted “within the scope of his office or employment” for purposes of the PSTCA. 

_{Case Law Alerts, 4th Quarter, October 2024 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. Copyright © 2024 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.}