MCNEILL et al v. BOROUGH OF FOLCROFT et al

Filing 19

ORDER THAT THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DOC. NO. 15) IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. OTHER INSTRUCTIONS ARE AS OUTLINED HEREIN. SIGNED BY HONORABLE HARVEY BARTLE, III ON 11/12/2014. 11/13/2014 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(jmg, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
MARK G. MCNEILL, et al.
v.
BOROUGH OF FOLCROFT, et al.

:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION

NO. 13-3592

ORDER
AND NOW, this 12th day of November, 2014, for the
reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum, it is hereby
ORDERED that:
(1)

the motion of defendants the Borough of Folcroft,

Police Chief Robert Ruskowski, and Police Officer Michael Fiocco
for summary judgment (Doc. # 15) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in
part;
(2)

the motion of defendants for summary judgment on

Count I of the Complaint, which alleges liability against Police
Chief Robert Ruskowski under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, is GRANTED;
(3)

the motion of defendants for summary judgment on

Count II of the Complaint, which alleges municipal liability
against the Borough of Folcroft under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, is GRANTED;
(4)

the motion of defendants for summary judgment on

Count IV, which asserts a negligence claim against the Borough of
Folcroft, is GRANTED except insofar as Count IV alleges a claim
based on a theory of vicarious liability;

(5)

the motion of defendants for summary judgment on

Count V, which asserts a negligence claim against Police Officer
Michael Fiocco, is DENIED;
(6)

the motion of defendants for summary judgment on

Count VI, which asserts a claim for statutory damages under the
Pennsylvania Wrongful Death Act, is GRANTED insofar as Count VI
relates to plaintiffs’ negligence claim against the Borough of
Folcroft based on any theory other than vicarious liability, and is
DENIED insofar as Count VI relates to plaintiffs’ negligence claim
against Police Officer Michael Fiocco and to plaintiffs’ negligence
claim against the Borough of Folcroft on a theory of vicarious
liability; and
(7)

the motion of defendants for summary judgment on

Count VII, which asserts a claim for statutory damages under the
Pennsylvania Survival Act, is GRANTED insofar as Count VII relates
to plaintiffs’ negligence claim against the Borough of Folcroft
based on any theory other than vicarious liability, and is DENIED
insofar as Count VII relates to plaintiffs’ negligence claim
against Police Officer Michael Fiocco and to plaintiffs’ negligence

-2-

claim against the Borough of Folcroft on a theory of vicarious
liability.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Harvey Bartle III
J.

-3-