§ 509. Use of force by persons with special responsibility for care, discipline or safety
of others.
The use of force upon or toward the person of another is justifiable if:
(1) The actor is the parent or guardian or other person similarly responsible for the
general care and supervision of a minor or a person acting at the request of such
parent, guardian or other responsible person and:
(i) the force is used for the purpose of safeguarding or promoting the welfare of the
minor, including the preventing or punishment of his misconduct; and
(ii) the force used is not designed to cause or known to create a substantial risk of causing
death, serious bodily injury, disfigurement, extreme pain or mental distress or gross
degradation.
(2) The actor is a teacher or person otherwise entrusted with the care or supervision
for a special purpose of a minor and:
(i) the actor believes that the force used is necessary to further such special purpose,
including the maintenance of reasonable discipline in a school, class or other group,
and that the use of such force is consistent with the welfare of the minor; and
(ii) the degree of force, if it had been used by the parent or guardian of the minor, would
not be unjustifiable under paragraph (1)(ii).
(3) The actor is the guardian or other person similarly responsible for the general care
and supervision of an incapacitated, mentally ill or mentally retarded person; and:
(i) the force is used for the purpose of safeguarding or promoting the welfare of the
incapacitated, mentally ill or mentally retarded person, including the prevention
of his misconduct, and there is no reasonable alternative to the use of such force;
and
(ii) the force used is not designed to cause or known to create a substantial risk of causing
death, bodily injury, disfigurement, unnecessary pain, mental distress, or humiliation.
(4) The actor is a doctor or other therapist or a person assisting him at his direction;
and:
(i) the force is used for the purpose of administering a recognized form of treatment
not prohibited by law of this Commonwealth which the actor believes to be adapted
to promoting the physical or mental health of the patient; and
(ii) the treatment is administered with the consent of the patient, or, if the patient
is a minor or an incapacitated person with the consent of his parent or guardian or
other person legally competent to consent in his behalf, or the treatment is administered
in an emergency when the actor believes that no one competent to consent can be consulted
and that a reasonable person, wishing to safeguard the welfare of the patient, would
consent.
(5) The actor is a warden or other authorized official of a correctional institution;
and:
(i) he believes that the force used is necessary for the purpose of enforcing the lawful
rules or procedures of the institution, unless his belief in the lawfulness of the
rule or procedure sought to be enforced is erroneous and his error is due to ignorance
or mistake as to the provisions of this title, any other provision of the criminal
law or the law governing the administration of the institution;
(ii) the nature or degree of force used is not forbidden by law; and
(iii) if deadly force is used, its use is otherwise justifiable under this chapter.
(6) The actor is a person responsible for the safety of a vessel or an aircraft or a person
acting at his direction; and:
(i) he believes that the force used is necessary to prevent interference with the operation
of the vessel or aircraft or obstruction of the execution of a lawful order, unless
his belief in the lawfulness of the order is erroneous and his error is due to ignorance
or mistake as to the law defining his authority; and
(ii) if deadly force is used, its use is otherwise justifiable under this chapter.
(7) The actor is a person who is authorized or required by law to maintain order or decorum
in a vehicle, train or other carrier or in a place where others are assembled; and:
(i) he believes that the force used is necessary for such purpose; and
(ii) the force used is not designed to cause death, or known to create a substantial risk
of causing death, bodily injury, or extreme mental distress.
(Oct. 21, 1988, P.L.1000, No.115, eff. imd.; Apr. 16, 1992, P.L.108, No.24, eff. 60
days)
Cross References. Section 509 is referred to in section 8340.2 of Title 42 (Judiciary and Judicial Procedure).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
27
cases (
4 in the last 5 years), 1978–2024 · leading case:
Willis v. State, 888 N.E.2d 177 (Ind. 2008).
Willis v. State, 888 N.E.2d 177 (Ind. 2008).
· cites it 2× “205(1) (2003); 18 Pa. Cons.Stat. Ann. § 509(1) (1998); S.”
Commonwealth v. Bradley, 69 A.3d 253 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2013).
· cites it 2× “In support of this issue, the argument portion of Bradley’s *256 brief presents a single argument: Bradley’ conviction for aggravated assault must be vacated because Bradley’s use of force in breaking his daughter’s arm was justified pursuant to 18 Pa.C.S. § 509. Appellant’s…”
Commonwealth v. Ogin, 540 A.2d 549 (Pa. 1988).
· cites it 2× “18 Pa.Cons.Stat.Ann. § 509 (Purdon 1983).”
Commonwealth v. Douglass, 588 A.2d 53 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1991).
· cites it 5× “” 18 Pa.C.S. § 509. Although a teacher who causes “extreme pain” necessarily causes “substantial pain,” because the definition of substantial pain is necessarily included within the meaning of extreme pain, the two terms are not synonymous.”
Commonwealth v. Moore, 395 A.2d 1328 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1978).
· cites it 2× “18 Pa.C.S. § 509(1) specifically provides that: “The use of force upon or toward the person of another is justifiable if: (1) The actor is the parent or guardian or other person similarly responsible for the general care and supervision of a minor or a person acting at the…”
Boland v. Leska, 454 A.2d 75 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1982).
· cites it 2× “The hearing court concluded that neither incident constituted child abuse. We agree.”
P.R. v. Commonwealth, Dep't of Pub. Welfare, Off. of Hearings & Appeals, 801 A.2d 478 (Pa. 2002).
“In assessing the facts presented to determine if abuse occurred, the Superior Court applied the following standard: Parents or guardians may use corporal punishment to discipline their children so long as the force used is not designed or known to create a substantial risk of…”
Seyler v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 509 A.2d 438 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1986).
· cites it 3× “2d 432 (1984), for the proposition that 18 Pa. C. S. §509 is applicable to all administrative proceedings and therefore must be applied in this revocation proceeding.”
F.R. v. Dep't of Pub. Welfare, 4 A.3d 779 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2010).
“Petitioner also argues that the Bureau erred in applying only the Child Protective Services Law (CPSL) 2 instead of Section 509 of the Crimes Code, 18 Pa.C.S. § 509 (Crimes Code). For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.”
P.R. v. Commonwealth, 801 A.2d 478 (Pa. 2002).
“In assessing the facts presented to determine if abuse occurred, the Superi- or Court applied the following standard: Parents or guardians may use corporal punishment to discipline their children so long as the force used is not designed or known to create a substantial risk of…”
Commonwealth v. Dorvil, 32 N.E.3d 861 (Mass. 2015).
“§ 2C:3-8 (exempting “[djeadly force”); 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 509 (exempting force “designed to cause or known to create a substantial risk of causing death, serious bodily injury, disfigurement, extreme pain or mental distress or gross degradation”).”
In the Interest of J.L., 475 A.2d 156 (Pa. 1984).
“Anger, however, cannot alone translate into an intent to commit bodily injury or substantial pain upon appellant’s two year old nephew.”
— 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 509(1) — 14 cases
Willis v. State, 888 N.E.2d 177 (Ind. 2008).
“205(1) (2003); 18 Pa. Cons.Stat. Ann. § 509(1) (1998); S.”
Commonwealth v. Moore, 395 A.2d 1328 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1978).
“18 Pa.C.S. § 509(1) specifically provides that: “The use of force upon or toward the person of another is justifiable if: (1) The actor is the parent or guardian or other person similarly responsible for the general care and supervision of a minor or a person acting at the…”
Boland v. Leska, 454 A.2d 75 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1982).
“The hearing court concluded that neither incident constituted child abuse. We agree.”
P.R. v. Commonwealth, Dep't of Pub. Welfare, Off. of Hearings & Appeals, 801 A.2d 478 (Pa. 2002).
“In assessing the facts presented to determine if abuse occurred, the Superior Court applied the following standard: Parents or guardians may use corporal punishment to discipline their children so long as the force used is not designed or known to create a substantial risk of…”
P.R. v. Commonwealth, 801 A.2d 478 (Pa. 2002).
“In assessing the facts presented to determine if abuse occurred, the Superi- or Court applied the following standard: Parents or guardians may use corporal punishment to discipline their children so long as the force used is not designed or known to create a substantial risk of…”
— 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 509(2) — 2 cases
— 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 509(2)(i) — 1 case
Commonwealth v. Douglass, 588 A.2d 53 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1991).
“” 18 Pa.C.S. § 509. Although a teacher who causes “extreme pain” necessarily causes “substantial pain,” because the definition of substantial pain is necessarily included within the meaning of extreme pain, the two terms are not synonymous.”
— 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 509(5)(i) — 1 case
— 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 509(l)(i) — 3 cases
Commonwealth v. Bradley, 69 A.3d 253 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2013).
“In support of this issue, the argument portion of Bradley’s *256 brief presents a single argument: Bradley’ conviction for aggravated assault must be vacated because Bradley’s use of force in breaking his daughter’s arm was justified pursuant to 18 Pa.C.S. § 509. Appellant’s…”
— 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 509(l)(ii) — 1 case
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.