Opinion ID: 795169
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Sanford's State Law Negligence Claim

Text: 71 We now turn to Sanford's allegation that Stiles is liable for negligence under Pennsylvania law. The District Court determined that Sanford's state claim failed for lack of causation. Specifically, it stated that Sanford has not presented evidence that Pamela Stiles caused Michael Sanford to kill himself. Additionally, the District Court found that Stiles is entitled to immunity under Pennsylvania's Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act (PPSTCA). We agree and affirm on this point. 72 Under the PPSTCA, local agencies such as school districts are given broad tort immunity. The Act provides that, no local agency shall be liable for any damages on account of any injury to a person or property caused by any act of the local agency or an employee thereof or any other person. 42 Pa. Cons.Stat. § 8541. There are eight acts excepted from the immunity granted under § 8541, but none applies here. See 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 8542. 18 73 Municipal employees, including school district employees, are generally immune from liability to the same extent as their employing agency, so long as the act committed was within the scope of the employee's employment. 42 Pa. Cons.Stat. § 8545. However, there is an exception to this general rule: Employees are not immune from liability under § 8545 where their conduct amounts to actual malice or willful misconduct: 74 In any action against a local agency or employee thereof for damages on account of an injury caused by the act of the employee in which it is judicially determined that the act of the employee caused the injury and that such act constituted a crime, actual fraud, actual malice or willful misconduct, the provisions of section[] 8545 ... shall not apply. 75 42 Pa. Cons.Stat. § 8550 (emphasis added). 76 There are no allegations of actual malice here. And, as the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has recognized, willful misconduct is a demanding level of fault. Willful misconduct has been defined by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court as conduct whereby the actor desired to bring about the result that followed or at least was aware that it was substantially certain to follow, so that such desire can be implied. Renk v. City of Pittsburgh, 537 Pa. 68, 641 A.2d 289, 293 (1994) (citations omitted). Otherwise stated, the term `willful misconduct' is synonymous with the term `intentional tort.' Id. (citation omitted); see also Bright, 443 F.3d at 287; Brown v. Muhlenberg Twp., 269 F.3d 205, 214 (3d Cir.2001). For the same reasons stated earlier in this opinion, we do not believe that a reasonable jury could conclude that Stiles engaged in willful misconduct. Therefore, she is entitled to immunity under Pennsylvania law.