Business Department

The case of a little girl exiting a school bus resulted in a significant change in the way the law treats pedestrians involved in car accidents. In 2005, the Supreme Court decided that Pennsylvanians bound by the limited tort option are not restricted by that choice if they are injured by a motor vehicle while walking. In L.S., a minor, et al. v. Hosler, et al., the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reversed a majority of the decisions which had held that a pedestrian was bound by his or her limited tort selection.

The case in question involves an 11-year-old girl who was struck by a vehicle while crossing the street and, as a result, sustained multiple contusions, abrasions and fractures. There was no question that she was covered by her mother's limited tort selection as she resided with her mother, who had chosen limited tort through a policy with State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company.

Under Pennsylvania law, each person who elects the limited tort alternative remains eligible to seek compensation for economic loss sustained in a motor vehicle accident as a consequence of the fault of another person but, unless the injury sustained is a "serious injury," he or she is precluded from maintaining an action for any non-economic loss, which includes pain and suffering. In the case of the 11-year-old girl, the economic loss was probably fairly minimal, while the pain and suffering may well have been significant.

Also under the law, a serious injury is defined as "a personal injury resulting in death, serious impairment of body function or permanent serious disfigurement" and there was no argument that the little girl had sustained a serious injury under the statute. Rather, the question turned on whether as a pedestrian she could pursue non-economic loss for injuries she sustained when struck by a motor vehicle.

The Court's Decision
The Supreme Court analyzed the Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law and noted that nothing in the language of the law suggests that the Pennsylvania legislature contemplated the inclusion of pedestrians within its framework. The court also noted that if the election of limited tort was meant to bind pedestrians, then the consumer must be properly notified so that he or she could make an informed decision and that the failure of the law to inform consumers of that limitation deprived the consumer of an ability to make a knowledgeable decision. Finally, the court noted that the injuries the little girl suffered did not result from her personal use of a motor vehicle, as either an operator or an occupant (in fact, she had exited a school bus before crossing the street), and that the General Assembly had shown a legislative preference for full tort option over limited tort option.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court held that pedestrians injured by a motor vehicle can seek recovery for all of their injuries, both economic and pain and suffering, regardless of whether they are bound by the limited tort or full tort selection on their motor vehicle policies.

It should be noted that the serious injury standard is significantly difficult to overcome if one has chosen the limited tort option. In this case, the little girl had sustained fractures along with multiple contusions and abrasions, and there was no significant argument that she did not meet the serious injury threshold for recovery of non-economic damages.

MacElree Harvey
17 West Miner Street
Post Office Box 660
West Chester, PA 19381–0660
p | 610.436.0100
f | 610.430.7885
f | 610.429.4486
e | info@macelree.com