Case Name: Smeltz, Appellant, v. Harrisburg
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1970-10-09
Citations: 440 Pa. 224
Docket Number: Appeal, No. 31
Parties: Smeltz, Appellant, v. Harrisburg.
Judges: Before Bell, C. J., Jones, Cohen, Eagen, O’Brien, Roberts and Pomeroy, JJ.
Reporter: Pennsylvania State Reports
Volume: 440
Pages: 224–229

Head Matter:
Smeltz, Appellant, v. Harrisburg.
Argued May 26, 1970.
Before Bell, C. J., Jones, Cohen, Eagen, O’Brien, Roberts and Pomeroy, JJ.
Albert D. Stuart, for appellant.
John C. Dowling, with him Dowling and Dowling, for appellee.
October 9, 1970:

Opinion:
Opinion by
Mr. Chief Justice Bell,
Naomi S. Livingston, formerly Naomi S. Smeltz, is the widow of Gerald J. Smeltz and the administratrix of his estate. Naomi Livingston instituted suit in trespass under the wrongful death and survival acts against Robert H. Copeland, a police officer in the City of Harrisburg, and against the City of Harrisburg itself. The complaint alleges that, while acting in the scope of his employment as a member of the Police Department, defendant Copeland negligently and carelessly shot and killed the decedent, Gerald J. Smeltz, during the course of a "stake-out."
The City of Harrisburg filed preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer, in which the City asserts its immunity from liability for a tort committed by a police officer acting within the scope of his official duties. These duties were concededly performed as part of the governmental functions of the City of Harrisburg. The lower Court sustained, the preliminary objections and entered judgment in favor of the City of Harrisburg. From this judgment, plaintiff took this appeal.
In Graysneck v. Heard, 422 Pa. 111, 220 A. 2d 893, the Court said (page 113) : "We held in 1960 that a municipality is immune from liability with respect to torts committed by its police officers in the course of the performance of a governmental function unless a right of recovery is expressly granted by statute. [Footnote omitted.] Stouffer v. Morrison, 400 Pa. 497, 162 A. 2d 378 (1960). The Stouffer decision disposes of this appeal because Heard was acting within the scope of a governmental function as a policeman when he produced his revolver in order to restore order.
"Appellant now asks this Court to overrule the Stouffer decision thereby subjecting the City to the possibility of liability in this case.
"We are unwilling so to do. Of. Dillon v. York City School District, 422 Pa. 103, 220 A. 2d 896 (1966)." See also, Meagher v. Commonwealth, 439 Pa. 532, 266 A. 2d 684; Flinchbaugh v. Cornwall-Lebanon Suburban Joint School Authority, 438 Pa. 407, 264 A. 2d 708; Laughner v. Allegheny County, 436 Pa. 572, 261 A. 2d 607; Thomas v. Baird, 433 Pa. 482, 252 A. 2d 653.
Judgment affirmed.