Eberhardinger v. City of York

Decision Date17 September 2018
Docket NumberCIVIL ACTION NO. 1:16-CV-2481
Citation341 F.Supp.3d 420
Parties Erika EBERHARDINGER, Plaintiff v. CITY OF YORK, et al., Defendants
CourtU.S. District Court — Middle District of Pennsylvania

Joshua B. Goldberg, Anders, Riegel & Massington, LLC, Bethlehem, PA, Patrick J. Best, ARM Lawyers, Stroudsburg, PA, for Plaintiff.

Donald B. Hoyt, Assistant City Solicitor, York, PA, Leticia J. Santiago, Blue Bell, PA, John P. Stengel, Eager, Spinello, Quinn & Stengel, Lancaster, PA, Karl L. Stefan, Forry Ullman, King of Prussia, PA, Lee E. Ullman, Forry, Ullman, Ullman & Forry, P.C., Reading, PA, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM

Christopher C. Conner, Chief JudgeIn the early morning hours of December 19, 2014, plaintiff Erika Eberhardinger ("Eberhardinger") left a bar with Mason Millen ("Millen") and defendant Matthew Foster ("Foster"). Foster, who later admitted to consuming multiple alcoholic beverages that evening, drove Eberhardinger's vehicle. A police officer witnessed Foster violate several traffic laws and attempted to pull the car over. Instead of stopping, Foster began a high-speed chase, which eventually ended when another officer shot four times at Eberhardinger's vehicle. Tragically, several bullets struck Eberhardinger, causing serious injuries. Eberhardinger advances constitutional claims against the officer who fired the shots and the City of York, Pennsylvania ("the City"). She also brings contractual claims against her own automobile insurance provider, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company ("State Farm"), for denying certain coverage for her injuries. The officer, the City, and State Farm move for summary judgment on all remaining claims against them.

I. Factual Background and Procedural History 1
A. The Events of December 19, 2014

At approximately 1:45 a.m. on December 19, 2014, Eberhardinger, Millen, and Foster left the Banana Max Bar & Grill in York, Pennsylvania in Eberhardinger's car. (Doc. 58-2 ¶ 1; Doc. 61 ¶ 1). Eberhardinger sat in the front passenger seat, Millen sat in the rear passenger seat, and Foster drove with Eberhardinger's permission. (Doc. 58-2 ¶ 2; Doc. 61 ¶ 7). Foster—who did not have a valid driver's license at the time—admitted that he consumed several beers and multiple shots of hard liquor over the course of the evening and that he was intoxicated when he left the bar. (Doc. 58-2 ¶¶ 26, 28, 30).

Not long into the drive, York City Police Officer Benjamin Praster ("Officer Praster") witnessed Foster pause in an intersection even though he had the right of way. (Doc. 58-2 ¶¶ 3-4, 32; Doc. 61 ¶ 10; Doc. 58-6 Ex. I at 5, 12). Officer Praster began following Foster, who increased his speed well above the legal limit and ran a stop sign. (Doc. 58-2 ¶¶ 33-34; Doc. 58-6 Ex. I at 5). Officer Praster activated his emergency lights and siren and attempted to execute a traffic stop of Eberhardinger's car. (Doc. 58-2 ¶ 35; Doc. 61 ¶ 10).

Foster did not pull over. (Doc. 61 ¶ 11). He instead led Officer Praster on a high-speed pursuit through the streets of York, during which Foster ran multiple stop signs and traveled in the wrong direction on several one-way streets. (Id.; Doc. 58-2 ¶¶ 86, 146-48; Doc. 58-6 Ex. N at 0:01-2:05). The chase lasted a little over two minutes, and it does not appear that any other occupied vehicles or pedestrians were encountered. (Doc. 58-6 Ex. N. at 0:01-2:05). During his pursuit, Officer Praster radioed that he was attempting to pull over a vehicle that was failing to stop. (Doc. 58-2 ¶ 83). York City Police Officer Benjamin Smith ("Officer Smith") was on duty five blocks away; he heard Officer Praster's transmission on his police radio, engaged his emergency lights and siren, and drove to the general area of the pursuit. (Id. ¶¶ 84-85, 87).

When Foster reached West Gay Street—a single-lane, one-way road permitting only eastbound travel—he began driving the wrong way (westbound) down the street. (Doc. 61 ¶ 12; Doc. 58-2 ¶ 88). Officer Smith entered West Gay Street traveling eastbound facing Foster's approaching vehicle, and Officer Praster entered from the opposite end of the street following Foster from behind. (Doc. 61 ¶ 13; Doc. 58-2 ¶ 92). Foster was "boxed in" by the police cruisers, cutting off any exit. (Doc. 58-6 Ex. I at 15; Doc. 58-5 Ex. G, Smith Dep. at 17:13-18:7; Doc. 58-5 Ex. D, Foster Dep. at 20:5-15, 22:2-9). Officer Smith parked his vehicle in the middle of West Gay Street facing east, blocking Foster's path. (Doc. 61 ¶ 14; Doc. 58-2 ¶ 95). To Officer Smith's left (on the north side of West Gay Street) was a guardrail and a drop-off to railroad tracks, and to his right (on the south side of the street) were parked vehicles. (Doc. 58-2 ¶¶ 90-91).

Foster saw Officer Smith's patrol car parked in the street in front of him and stopped Eberhardinger's car. (Doc. 61 ¶ 15). Immediately after Foster came to a stop, Officer Smith exited his patrol car with his service weapon drawn and started running on foot in pursuit of Foster, who had begun backing up in an eastbound direction. (Doc. 82, Eberhardinger Ex. Video Clip 2 ("Pl.'s Video Ex.") at 1:08-1:202 ; Doc. 58-2 ¶ 8). Officer Smith ran toward the reversing Eberhardinger vehicle and shouted "Get your fucking hands up!" (Doc. 58-2 ¶ 99; Doc. 65 ¶ 99; Pl.'s Video Ex. at 1:21-1:22). Officer Smith was unaware that there were any passengers in the vehicle until after it later came to rest and Eberhardinger and Millen climbed out. (Doc. 58-6 Ex. I at 15, 16; Doc. 58-6 Ex. J at 16, 17). As Foster was driving backward, he struck a telephone pole with the rear of the vehicle and came to a stop. (Doc. 61 ¶ 16). Foster briefly hesitated and then began driving forward in a westbound direction. (Pl.'s Video Ex. at 1:20-1:25).

The parties vehemently dispute the facts and sequence of events that followed. The City and Officer Smith maintain that Foster drove the vehicle directly toward Officer Smith, and that Officer Smith had to jump out of the way as Foster's vehicle "came within inches of Officer Smith's body and he could feel the wind as the vehicle passed by." (Doc. 58-2 ¶¶ 105-07, 112). Officer Smith avers that he "heard the tires squeal and the engine revving" after Foster collided with the telephone pole, and that as the vehicle drove towards him at a high rate of speed he discharged his firearm "in fear for his life," aiming at the center mass of the driver. (Id. ¶¶ 107, 109-10). Officer Smith contends that he "could not get out of the way" of Foster's vehicle because of the parked cars and the guardrail on either side of the street, and that after he discharged his firearm, "the vehicle swerved to the left [in his direction], [he] jumped to his right, hit a parked car with his body, and the vehicle passed him." (Id. ¶ 111). He maintains that he "stopped firing his firearm when the vehicle passed him completely and the threat was gone." (Id. ¶ 113).

Eberhardinger, per contra , avers that although Foster drove the vehicle forward after hitting the telephone pole, he never drove toward Officer Smith and was not driving fast. (Doc. 65 ¶¶ 100, 105, 107). According to Eberhardinger, Officer Smith was not in danger when he fired his service weapon, as he was already out of the way and standing safely between the parked cars on the south side of the street. (Id. ¶¶ 106, 108, 111). She maintains that Officer Smith discharged his firearm after the vehicle had passed him or at least had partially passed him. (Id. ¶¶ 109, 111, 113).

The parties agree that Officer Smith fired four shots at the vehicle. (Doc. 58-2 ¶ 11). Police reports, which include an interview with the treating physician, indicate that Eberhardinger was struck by two of the bullets. (Doc. 58-6 Ex. I at 7, 30; Doc. 58-6 Ex. J at 4). Eberhardinger was taken from the scene to the hospital for treatment of gunshot wounds

to her jaw, forearm, and hand. (Doc. 61 ¶¶ 24-26). Foster was taken into custody and eventually pled guilty to fleeing or attempting to elude an officer, driving while operating privileges are suspended or revoked, driving under the combined influence of alcohol and drugs, and three counts of reckless endangerment. (Doc. 58-2 ¶ 137; Doc. 58-6 Ex. L at 4-5). He also pled no contest to a charge of aggravated assault in relation to Officer Smith. (Doc. 58-2 ¶ 137; Doc. 58-6 Ex. L at 4-5).

B. The Insurance Claims

Eberhardinger had an automobile insurance policy with State Farm that was in effect at the time of the incident. (Doc. 61 ¶ 34). The policy covered the vehicle involved, which Eberhardinger owned. (Id. ¶ 49). She sought both Personal Injury Protection ("PIP") or Medical Payments Coverage for her medical treatment, as well as Underinsured Motorist ("UIM") benefits from State Farm. (Id. ) State Farm denied PIP and UIM coverage, asserting, inter alia , that the gunshot-inflicted injuries and resultant treatment "did not arise out of the maintenance or use of a motor vehicle." (Doc. 61-9 Ex. K).

C. Procedural History

Eberhardinger commenced this action in December 2016. Following Rule 12 motion practice, Eberhardinger filed an amended complaint in October 2017, asserting a Section 1983 excessive force claim against Officer Smith (Count I), a Monell claim for failure to train against the City (Count II), a state law negligence claim against Foster (Count III), breach of contract claims against State Farm for failure to make PIP payments (Count IV) and failure to make UIM payments (Count V), and a bad faith claim against State Farm for unreasonably denying insurance coverage (Count VI). The City, Officer Smith, and State Farm move for summary judgment on all claims against them.3 The motions are fully briefed and ripe for disposition.

II. Legal Standard

Through summary adjudication, the court may dispose of those claims that do not present a "genuine dispute as to any material fact" and for which a jury trial would be an empty and unnecessary formality. FED. R. CIV. P. 56(a). The burden of proof tasks the non-moving party to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Hering v. Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc., 1:15-cv-2440
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Pennsylvania
    • October 24, 2018
    ...to bring their allegations in a new action.III. CONCLUSIONConsistent with the foregoing analysis, Walgreens' Motion for Judgment on the 341 F.Supp.3d 420Pleadings, (Doc. 125), shall be granted, and Hering's Joint Motion to Intervene, (Doc. 132), shall be denied. We will issue a separate ord......
  • Webb v. City of Waterloo, 17-CV-2001-CJW-MAR
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa
    • December 11, 2019
    ...standing alone, does not constitute a failure to train that subjects the city to Monell liability. Eberhardinger v. City of York, 341 F. Supp. 3d 420, 430 (M.D. Pa. 2018), aff'd, 782 F. App'x 180 (3d Cir. 2019). In Eberhardinger, the plaintiff asserted that the defendant city was liable und......
  • Eberhardinger v. City of York
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit
    • August 5, 2019
    ...to the angle of the gunshots, that "[v]iewing the facts . . . in a light most favorable to Eberhardinger," Eberhardinger v. City of York, 341 F. Supp. 3d 420, 432 (M.D. Pa. 2018), did not support entry of summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. Looking at the facts in that ligh......
  • Clayton v. City of Newark
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey
    • December 22, 2021
    ... ... (Count IX; 2AC ¶¶ 262-67). [ 3 ] See generally Monell v ... Dep't of Soc. Servs. of City of New York , 436 U.S ... 658 (1978) (stating standards for municipal government § ... 1983 liability; see infra ) ... In ... See ... McDonald v. City of Troy , No. 1:18-CV-1327, 2021 WL ... 2232565, at *10 (N.D.N.Y. June 3, 2021); Eberhardinger v ... City of York, ... 341 F.Supp.3d 420, 430 (M.D. Pa. 2018), aff'd , ... 782 Fed.Appx. 180 (3d Cir. 2019); Est. of Smith v ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT