Pennsylvania § 8546 Defense of official immunity

Pennsylvania Statutes

§ 8546 — Defense of official immunity

Pennsylvania § 8546

JurisdictionPennsylvania

Title 42JUDICIARY AND JUDICIAL PROCEDURE

PartPART VII

Ch. 85MATTERS AFFECTING GOVERNMENT UNITS

Subch.ACTIONS AGAINST LOCAL PARTIES

This text of Pennsylvania § 8546 (Defense of official immunity) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 8546 (2026).

Text

In any action brought against an employee of a local agency for damages on account of an injury to a person or property based upon claims arising from, or reasonably related to, the office or the performance of the duties of the employee, the employee may assert on his own behalf, or the local agency may assert on his behalf:

(1)Defenses which are available at common law to the employee.

(2)The defense that the conduct of the employee which gave rise to the claim was authorized or required by law, or that he in good faith reasonably believed the conduct was authorized or required by law.

(3)The defense that the act of the employee which gave rise to the claim was within the policymaking discretion granted to the employee by law. For purposes of this subsection, all acts of members of

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In any action brought against an employee of a local agency for damages on account of an injury to a person or property based upon claims arising from, or reasonably related to, the office or the performance of the duties of the employee, the employee may assert on his own behalf, or the local agency may assert on his behalf:

(1) Defenses which are available at common law to the employee.

(2) The defense that the conduct of the employee which gave rise to the claim was authorized or required by law, or that he in good faith reasonably believed the conduct was authorized or required by law.

(3) The defense that the act of the employee which gave rise to the claim was within the policymaking discretion granted to the employee by law. For purposes of this subsection, all acts of members of the governing body of a local agency or of the chief executive officer thereof are deemed to be within the policymaking discretion granted to such person by law.