PA Supreme Court rules $250,000 sovereign immunity cap is constitutional

Pennsylvania’s statutory $250,000 sovereign immunity damages cap does not violate the state constitution’s right to a jury trial or its right to a remedy when applied to a pedestrian struck by a regional transit bus, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania ruled on October 1, 2026. Hayley Freilich was walking in the crosswalk when a Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority bus struck her, running over her left foot with its front axle. The incident resulted in severe, permanent trauma requiring a partial left foot amputation, multiple subsequent surgeries, and lifelong professional curative medical care.

Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority Liability Limits and the Court Challenge

Freilich retained legal counsel specifically to challenge Section 8528(b) of the Judicial Code, commonly known as the Sovereign Immunity Act. Under 42 Pa.C.S. § 8528(b), damages arising from the same transaction or occurrence against a Commonwealth party are capped at $250,000 per plaintiff, with a $1,000,000 aggregate limit. Freilich argued that applying this cap violated Article I, Section 6 of the Pennsylvania Constitution guaranteeing a jury trial, as well as Article I, Section 11 guaranteeing a remedy.

Freilich filed a negligence complaint in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas in 2018. The Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority answered the complaint by asserting all immunities and limitations available under the Judicial Code, but simultaneously offered to settle the claims for the maximum statutory amount of $250,000. Freilich rejected the settlement offer. Because the transit authority admitted liability, the trial court scheduled proceedings solely to determine compensatory damages.

Parties Agree to 7 Million Dollar Stipulated Verdict

Pandemic-related court complications and the expense of a full jury trial prompted both parties to enter into a Stipulated Jury Verdict for Plaintiff on October 29, 2021. The total amount of the stipulated agreement was $7,000,000, consisting of $500,000 for future economic losses, $500,000 for past economic losses, and $6,000,000 for non-economic losses in the past and present. The parties agreed to litigate post-trial motions as though a jury had returned the verdict.

Freilich filed a motion seeking $892,979 in delay damages. Simultaneously, the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority filed a motion to mold the verdict to conform with the $250,000 statutory cap, pointing back to its original settlement offer. Opposing the transit authority’s motion, Freilich relied on a concurring opinion from prior litigation to argue against the constitutionality of the legislative cap. Both the Court of Common Pleas and the Commonwealth Court rejected Freilich’s constitutional arguments and ruled in favor of molding the verdict to the statutory limit, leading to the discretionary appeal before the state Supreme Court. Based on the subsequent reasoning, we must conclude that the Sovereign Immunity Act, as it pertains to the circumstances sub judice, does not infringe upon the right to a remedy or the right to a jury trial under our Constitution, and we therefore uphold the Commonwealth Court’s order.