Adam Urda v. Jeffrey Sokso

Scranton, Pennsylvania, personal injury lawyer represented the Plaintiff who sued civil rights violation theory.



One Saturday afternoon, LaRae Bowen had some friends over, including her coworker Urda. The group headed down to a lake and tried to start a bonfire. But the wood was still wet from some rain and would not catch. Then one partygoer had an idea: He went to his truck and got a quart of motor oil and a jug of remote-controlled-racecar fuel. He handed the racecar fuel to Urda, who waited as his companion dumped the motor oil on the smoldering fire. But nothing happened.



So Urda joined in, splashing the racecar fuel onto the fire over the motor oil. That triggered an explosion, lighting Urda, the other partygoer, and a four-year-old girl on fire. Engulfed in flames, the three had to jump into the lake to put out the fires. The little girl was hospitalized for a month and needed a ventilator and skin grafts



Trooper Sokso investigated the explosion. After inspect-ing the scene, interviewing witnesses, and speaking with Urda, he drafted a criminal complaint charging Urda with ag-gravated assault and risking a catastrophe. 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. §§ 2702(a)(8), 3302(b). He ran the complaint by an assistant district attorney, who approved the charges and recommended adding a third: recklessly endangering another person. 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 2705. Sokso filed the complaint in state court with all three charges. A magistrate judge dismissed the first two charges but not the third. The Court of Common Pleas then dismissed the third charge too, finding no probable cause that Urda had committed the crime.



Qualified immunity protects police officers who make wrong but reasonable judgment calls absent clearly estab-lished law. In this case, Trooper Jeffrey Sokso filed a criminal complaint charging Adam Urda with acting recklessly after Urda poured fuel onto a smoldering fire, lighting himself and two bystanders on fire. Although the charges were later dis-missed, Sokso's conduct was reasonable in the circumstances. So he gets qualified immunity.

Affirmed on appeal.