Judicial+-+Renk

Title & Citation: Renk V Pittsburgh (641 A.2d 289), 1994

Question / Issue: Is indemnification by a local agency for the payment of a judgment entered against a police officer in a civil action for assault and battery and false imprisonment prohibited in all instances under the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act?

Facts of the Case: Rationale: Holding:
 * Bus Driver requested Rank’s assistance
 * Renk was stopped as he was entering the police station to report for duty
 * Laney was using an invalid bus pass and refused to get off the bus
 * At the driver’s request Rank removed Laney from the bus
 * Laney was arrested for disorderly conduct and escorted to the police station
 * A scuffle broke out on the way to the police station and Renk’s elbow struck Laney in the mouth
 * Laney was detained until Renk dressed in his uniform. Then Renk wrote citation for disorderly conduct
 * Citation was dismissed when Renk failed to appear at the hearing
 * Laney brought action in the US District Court for the Western District of PA asserting, among other things, federal and state claims for assault and battery, false imprisonment, emotional distress – all tried before a jury
 * Jury found that neither the City or Renk violated 42 USC 1981, but found Renk liable to Laney on the state tort claims
 * Judgment against Renk in the amount of $7,648.08, which included $2,500.00 in compensatory damages, $5,000.00 in punitive damages, and costs
 * On Appeal: Commonwealth Court considered whether Renk was collaterally estopped (A legal principle that bars a party from denying or alleging a certain fact owing to that party's previous conduct, allegation, or denial.) from asserting that he acted within the scope of his duties
 * City contented that the scope of duties was litigated and determined in federal court and that Renk was precluded from asserting that he was acting within the scope of his duties in the indemnification action
 * Commonwealth Court concluded that Renk was not collaterally estopped from rasing the issue because the specific issue was never put to a jury and there was no indication that a jury considered or addressed the issue
 * Commonwealth Court reversed the Trial Court on the basis that Renk’s actions constituted willful misconduct.
 * If willful misconduct, the city has no obligation to Renk to pay compensation or reparation
 * Willful misconduct = intentional tort (King v. Breach)
 * Jury found Renk liable for the intentional tort of assault, battery, and false imprisonment – The trial court erred in finding that Renk was entitled to indemnification
 * Appeal granted to decide if a liability for tortuous conduct is equivalent of a determination of willful misconduct sufficient to preclude indemnification for the payment of a judgment entered in the action.
 * Political Subdivisions Tort Act
 * Grants a city governmental immunity and liability for any damages caused by an act of the city, its employee, or any other person, except as provided in the statute (42 Pa CSA 8542). Immunity extends to an employee of the city who is liable for damages caused by acts which are within the scope of duties or office.
 * Employee may be indemnified for the payment of a judgment when the employee was acting, or reasonably believed he was acting, within the scope of duties
 * Employee immunity does not extend to acts that are judicially determined to be crimes, actual fraud or malice, or willful misconduct.
 * Renk asserts that the Commonwealth Court disregarded precedent set in Wiehagen and erred in holding that the verdict in the federal court action established that his actions constituted willful misconduct as a matter of law
 * The idea of indemnification allows local agency employees to perform their official duties without fear of personal liability, so long as conduct is performed during the course of their employment. (Wiehagen)
 * The Commonwealth Court attempted to distinguish Renk from Wiehagen
 * Wiehagen – municipality stated that the officer was acting in good faith and within the scope of his authority
 * Commonwealth Court failed to differentiate between the issue of acting within the scope of duties and the issue of whether the acts constituted willful misconduct
 * Renk was acting within the Scope of his duties, as per the decision of the trial court
 * Willful misconduct = conduct whereby the actor desired to bring about the result that followed or was at least aware that it was substantially certain to follow, so that such a desire can be implied (Supreme Court in Evans)
 * Conclusion = Renk’s actions do not constitute willful misconduct
 * King decision is of no precedential value because the context of the lawsuit is based upon police conduct
 * Assault = intentional attempt by force to do injury to another (Cohen)
 * Battery = Violence menaced in the assault is actually done upon the person (Cohen)
 * However, a police officer may use reasonable force to prevent interference with the exercise of his authority or the performance of his duty. In making a lawful arrest, a police officer may use such force as is necessary under the circumstances to effectuate the arrest
 * The reasonableness of force used in making the arrest determines whether the conduct constitutes assault or battery
 * A police officer may be found guilty of assault and battery if a jury determines that the force used during arrest is excessive
 * Unclear whether a jury in the federal action determined that Renk intentionally used excessive force, or only that he intentionally used force
 * Imprisonment
 * Detention
 * Arrest based on probable cause is justified, regardless of whether the individual arrested was guilty or not (Fagan)
 * Probable cause exists when the facts and circumstances which are within the knowledge of the police officer at the time of the arrest, and of which he has reasonably trustworthy information, are sufficient to warrant a man of reasonable caution in belief that the suspect has committed or is committing a crime (Commonwealth v. Rodriguez)
 * A police officer may be found guilty of false imprisonment when a jury concludes that there was not probable cause to make an arrest
 * Unclear whether a jury in the federal action determined that Renk intentionally arrested Laney knowing that he lacked probable cause to make the arrest
 * A police officer may be indemnified for the payment of a judgment entered in a civil action for assault and battery and false imprisonment absent a judicial determine that the officer’s acts constituted willful misconduct. Decision of the Commonwealth Court is reversed.


 * The city relied solely upon the verdict of the jury in the federal action and did not add any other evidence to show that Renk’s actions constituted willful misconduct – jury verdict is insufficient to establish willful misconduct in this case. Nor is the award of punitive damages sufficient to establish willful misconduct, since reckless conduct may be sufficient to support such an award
 * City failed to establish willful misconduct
 * Order of the Commonwealth court is reverse