Allegations of police abuse as well as the gig economy and protections for athletes are set to highlight the three-day Pennsylvania Supreme Court argument session scheduled to take place in Harrisburg.

The high court is set to hear argument in a total of 24 cases beginning Tuesday, with the justices expected to hear a total of nine cases both Tuesday and Wednesday. The arguments are set to touch on a wide range of issues, from the expectation of privacy on computers that are being repaired to a set of first-impression questions about the power balance between car dealerships and automakers.

Excessive Force?

Is a State Police trooper acting within the scope of his employment immune from excessive force claims, even if his actions cause intentional harm? That is a question the justices are expected to consider in the case Justice v. Lombardo.

The case stems from an altercation between trooper Joseph Lombardo and plaintiff Shiretta Justice that occurred after a traffic stop. Last year, a three-judge Commonwealth Court panel found that, because Lombardo had been acting within the scope of his employment and had been authorized in his behavior, he was protected by sovereign immunity, and the details of the incident involving Justice were “irrelevant.”

“Whether his conduct was reasonable or not, intentional or not, tortious or not, carried out for an improper motive or not, are all irrelevant because Trooper Lombardo's use of force in placing Ms. Justice's hands behind her back and 'wrestling' with her to apply handcuffs was of the same general nature as that authorized or incidental to the conduct authorized, and use of force, in general, by state troopers is not unexpected,” Senior Judge Dan Pellegrini wrote for the court.

The justices granted allocatur in a one-page order issued June 5, taking up a single question: “Was [respondent] acting within the scope of his employment throughout his entire encounter with the motorist, and thus entitled to JNOV on the basis of sovereign immunity?”

Gig Economy

On Wednesday, the justices are set to consider a case that could have broad implications for residents seeking to rent out their homes on Airbnb and other lodging networks that have proliferated in the so-called gig economy. In the case Slice of Life v. Hamilton Township Zoning Hearing Board, the justices are set to specifically address whether a zoning board can penalize a property owner for operating a single-family home as a short-term vacation rental.

The case involves property owner Val Kleyman and her company, Slice of Life, which operated the home as a vacation rental. After the township argued that the use was at odds with the zoning, the trial court held that Kleyman's use of the property as a short-term rental created public health and safety concerns, specifically regarding the untested septic system on the property. A Commonwealth Court panel, however, disagreed, finding the board offered only speculation.

Arguments are set to focus on “whether the Commonwealth Court disregarded the binding precedent of this court, set forth in the case Albert v. Zoning Hearing Board of North Abington Township by finding that the purely transient use of a property as part of a commercial short-term vacation rental business was a permitted use in a residential zoning district?”

Student-Athlete Protections

The justices are also set to consider Wednesday what standards colleges need to adhere to in order to satisfy their duty of care to student-athletes.

In the case Feleccia v. Lackawanna College the parties are expected to address whether colleges are “required to have qualified medical personnel present at intercollegiate athletic events to satisfy a duty of care to the college's student-athletes,” and whether clauses releasing schools from “any and all liability” in connection with intercollegiate football is enforceable when it comes to negligence claims.

The case stems from injuries two students sustained in 2010 while performing a variation of the “Oklahoma drill” during tryouts for Lackawanna College's football team. The students sued members of the team's medical staff, who were allegedly not certified or licensed to serve as athletic trainers.

A unanimous two-judge Superior Court panel held in February that a genuine issue of material fact existed regarding the players' assumption of risk during a tackle drill rather than during a football game. The decision reversed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to Lackawanna College and remanded the case for trial.

Arguments in the case come as sports-related litigation is growing around the country.

Also on the Docket

In General Motors v. Bureau of Professional and Occupational Affairs, the high court is set to consider two first-impression issues stemming from a dispute between General Motors and several local dealerships over reimbursements for warranty repairs. The justices are set to hear that case late Thursday.

Also on Thursday, the court is expected to consider whether motor vehicle insurers can exclude coverage for nonfamily members who live with the vehicle owner but are not specifically included in the policy. Last September, the state Superior Court upheld such an exclusion in a policy issued by Safe Auto Insurance Co., finding that it was enforceable under the state's Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law.

On Tuesday, the court is set to consider whether a 30-day time limit to file affidavits applies to divorce cases. The case at issue, In re Estate of Easterday, involved a man who died while he was in the process of a divorce. A state Superior Court panel previously determined that the 30-day time limit applied, saying that “stale affidavits may not for the basis for the entry  a final decree.”

In Commonwealth v. Shaffer, which is scheduled for Thursday, the justices are set to consider whether a person “give[s] up his expectation of privacy in the closed private files stored on his computer, merely by taking his computer to a commercial establishment for service or repair.”