Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes

42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 8553 (2026)

Limitations on damages.

✓ current as of May 2026

Coverage note: this corpus holds the consolidated Pa.C.S. titles only. Unconsolidated P.S. statutes (UTPCPL 73 P.S. § 201-1, Liquor Code, wage payment laws) are not included; a miss here does not mean the statute does not exist. Check palegis.us.

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section PA-LEGpalegis.us JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

LIMITATIONS ON DAMAGES

§ 8553. Limitations on damages.

(a) General rule.--Actions for which damages are limited by reference to this subchapter shall be limited as set forth in this section.

(b) Amounts recoverable.--Damages arising from the same cause of action or transaction or occurrence or series of causes of action or transactions or occurrences shall not exceed $500,000 in the aggregate.

(c) Types of losses recognized.--Damages shall be recoverable only for:

(1) Past and future loss of earnings and earning capacity.

(2) Pain and suffering in the following instances:

(i) death; or

(ii) only in cases of permanent loss of a bodily function, permanent disfigurement or permanent dismemberment where the medical and dental expenses referred to in paragraph (3) are in excess of $1,500.

(3) Medical and dental expenses including the reasonable value of reasonable and necessary medical and dental services, prosthetic devices and necessary ambulance, hospital, professional nursing, and physical therapy expenses accrued and anticipated in the diagnosis, care and recovery of the claimant.

(4) Loss of consortium.

(5) Loss of support.

(6) Property losses.

(d) Insurance benefits.--If a claimant receives or is entitled to receive benefits under a policy of insurance other than a life insurance policy as a result of losses for which damages are recoverable under subsection (c), the amount of such benefits shall be deducted from the amount of damages which would otherwise be recoverable by such claimant.

(e) Exclusions.--This section shall not apply to damages awarded under section 8542(b)(9) (relating to exceptions to governmental immunity).

(Nov. 26, 2019, P.L.641, No.87, eff. Nov. 26, 2019)

2019 Amendment. Act 87 added subsec. (e). See sections 9 and 10(3) of Act 87 in the appendix to this title for special provisions relating to severability and applicability.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 126 cases (15 in the last 5 years), 1983–2025 · leading case: Philadelphia Police Dept. v. Gray, 633 A.2d 1090 (Pa. 1993).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Philadelphia Police Dept. v. Gray, 633 A.2d 1090 (Pa. 1993). · cites it 6× “00 based upon 42 Pa.C.S. § 8553(c)(2) and in favor of SEPTA and against Kathleen Williams.”

Kmonk-Sullivan v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins., 788 A.2d 955 (Pa. 2001). · cites it 2× “00, the maximum amount payable for a single tort claim against a local government unit pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 8553(b). Mrs. Midili then submitted a claim to Erie Insurance Group (hereinafter "Erie") in an attempt to recover $300,000.”

Zauflik v. Pennsbury Sch. Dist., 72 A.3d 773 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2013). · cites it 4× “42 Pa.C.S. § 8553. Section 8553 of the Tort Claims Act addresses limitations in damages, and provides, in relevant part: (a) General rule.”

Irwin v. Town of Ware, 467 N.E.2d 1292 (Mass. 1984). · cites it 2× “270 (1983) ($100,000 per claimant, $300,000 per incident); 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 8553 (Purdon 1982) ($500,000 per incident); Tex.”

Fernandez v. City of Pittsburgh, 643 A.2d 1176 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1994). · cites it 8× “The extent to which damage awards are recoverable from a municipality is set forth in 42 Pa.C.S. § 8553, which provides in pertinent part: (b) Amounts recoverable.”

Modern Shoppers World-Mt. Airy Corp. v. Philadelphia Gas Works, 643 A.2d 136 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1994). · cites it 7× “Granite State Insurance Company (Granite) appeals from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County (trial court) that granted a cross-motion for summary judgment on behalf of the Philadelphia Facilities and Management Corporation (PFMC) after concluding that…”

Wiehagen v. Borough of North Braddock, 594 A.2d 303 (Pa. 1991). · cites it 3× “It found that 42 Pa.C.S. § 8553(c), 2 which limits the types of damages recoverable under the Act, does not provide for the recovery of attorney fees, and that Wiehagen was therefore not entitled to indemnification for this portion of the judgment against him.”

Smith v. City of Philadelphia, 516 A.2d 306 (Pa. 1986). · cites it 2× “[1] 42 Pa.C.S. § 8553(b) provides: Amounts recoverable Damages arising from the same cause of action or transaction or occurrence or series of causes of action or transactions or occurrences shall not exceed $500,000 in the aggregate.”

E.J. Ewing v. B.D. Potkul & PennDOT ~ Appeal of: PennDOT, 171 A.3d 10 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2017). · cites it 3× “(6) Property losses, 42 Pa. C.S. § 8553(c) (emphasis added). PennDOT argues that the difference between the Tort Claims Act and the Sovereign Immunity Act is telling.”

Laich v. Bracey, 776 A.2d 1022 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2001). · cites it 2× “42 Pa.C.S. §§ 8553(c)(l)-8553(e)(2). The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has held that the phrase “permanent loss of a bodily function” means that as a proximate result of the accident, the injured claimant is unable to do or perform a bodily act or bodily acts which the claimant was…”

City of Philadelphia v. Nationwide Ins., 498 A.2d 462 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1985). · cites it 3× “This provision is currently found at Section 8553(d) of the Judicial Code, 42 Pa. C. S. §8553. Damages recoverable under former 53 P.”

United States Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Royer Garden Ctr. & Greenhouse, Inc., 598 A.2d 583 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1991). · cites it 3× “Kohler’s rationale for this argument is that the very limitations on damages against the Township set forth in 42 Pa.C.S. § 8553 would also prevent Kohler from exerting its right of contribution against the Township, pursuant to the Uniform Contribution Among Joint Tortfeasors…”

Show all 126 citing cases →

— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 8553(2)(ii) — 1 case

Oliver v. Tropiano Transp., Inc., 79 A.3d 1233 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2013).

— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 8553(a) — 2 cases

Bollinger v. OBRECHT, 552 A.2d 359 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1989).

Thomas v. City of Philadelphia, 861 A.2d 1023 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2004).

— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 8553(b) — 28 cases

Kmonk-Sullivan v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins., 788 A.2d 955 (Pa. 2001). “00, the maximum amount payable for a single tort claim against a local government unit pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 8553(b). Mrs. Midili then submitted a claim to Erie Insurance Group (hereinafter "Erie") in an attempt to recover $300,000.”

Smith v. City of Philadelphia, 516 A.2d 306 (Pa. 1986). “[1] 42 Pa.C.S. § 8553(b) provides: Amounts recoverable Damages arising from the same cause of action or transaction or occurrence or series of causes of action or transactions or occurrences shall not exceed $500,000 in the aggregate.”

Maloney v. City of Philadelphia, 535 A.2d 209 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1987).

Glencannon Homes Ass'n v. North Strabane Twp., 116 A.3d 706 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2015).

Schmidt v. Boardman Co., 958 A.2d 498 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2008).

— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 8553(c) — 20 cases

Wiehagen v. Borough of North Braddock, 594 A.2d 303 (Pa. 1991). “It found that 42 Pa.C.S. § 8553(c), 2 which limits the types of damages recoverable under the Act, does not provide for the recovery of attorney fees, and that Wiehagen was therefore not entitled to indemnification for this portion of the judgment against him.”

Balshy v. Pennsylvania State Police, 988 A.2d 813 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2010).

Lock v. City of Philadelphia, 895 A.2d 660 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2006).

E.J. Ewing v. B.D. Potkul & PennDOT ~ Appeal of: PennDOT, 171 A.3d 10 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2017). “(6) Property losses, 42 Pa. C.S. § 8553(c) (emphasis added). PennDOT argues that the difference between the Tort Claims Act and the Sovereign Immunity Act is telling.”

Norwin Sch. Dist. v. Cortazzo, 625 A.2d 183 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1993).

— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 8553(c)(1) — 1 case

— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 8553(c)(2) — 8 cases

Philadelphia Police Dept. v. Gray, 633 A.2d 1090 (Pa. 1993). “00 based upon 42 Pa.C.S. § 8553(c)(2) and in favor of SEPTA and against Kathleen Williams.”

United States Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Royer Garden Ctr. & Greenhouse, Inc., 598 A.2d 583 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1991). “Kohler’s rationale for this argument is that the very limitations on damages against the Township set forth in 42 Pa.C.S. § 8553 would also prevent Kohler from exerting its right of contribution against the Township, pursuant to the Uniform Contribution Among Joint Tortfeasors…”

Boyer v. City of Philadelphia, 692 A.2d 259 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1997).

Gloffke v. Robinson, 812 A.2d 728 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2002).

Owens v. City of Philadelphia, 47 Pa. D. & C.3d 290 (1987).

— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 8553(c)(2)(H) — 1 case

Sider v. Borough of Waynesboro, 933 A.2d 681 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2007).

— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 8553(c)(2)(h) — 1 case

Gloffke v. Robinson, 812 A.2d 728 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2002).

— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 8553(c)(2)(i) — 1 case

A. Young v. City of Scranton (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2023).

— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 8553(c)(2)(ii) — 12 cases

Philadelphia Police Dept. v. Gray, 633 A.2d 1090 (Pa. 1993). “00 based upon 42 Pa.C.S. § 8553(c)(2) and in favor of SEPTA and against Kathleen Williams.”

Oliver v. Tropiano Transp., Inc., 79 A.3d 1233 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2013).

Alexander v. Benson, 812 A.2d 785 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2002).

Smith v. Endless Mountain Transp. Auth., 878 A.2d 177 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2005).

Rosenblum v. Port Auth., 560 A.2d 912 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1989).

— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 8553(c)(6) — 2 cases

Phillips v. Ins. Comm'r of the Commonwealth, 980 A.2d 687 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2009).

A. Young v. City of Scranton (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2023).

— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 8553(c)(ii) — 2 cases

Egan v. Stroudsburg Sch. Dist., 928 A.2d 400 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2007).

Brown v. Marraccini, 61 Pa. D. & C.4th 32 (2002).

— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 8553(c)(l) — 1 case

Laich v. Bracey, 776 A.2d 1022 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2001). “42 Pa.C.S. §§ 8553(c)(l)-8553(e)(2). The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has held that the phrase “permanent loss of a bodily function” means that as a proximate result of the accident, the injured claimant is unable to do or perform a bodily act or bodily acts which the claimant was…”

— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 8553(d) — 31 cases

Modern Shoppers World-Mt. Airy Corp. v. Philadelphia Gas Works, 643 A.2d 136 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1994). “Granite State Insurance Company (Granite) appeals from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County (trial court) that granted a cross-motion for summary judgment on behalf of the Philadelphia Facilities and Management Corporation (PFMC) after concluding that…”

Fernandez v. City of Pittsburgh, 643 A.2d 1176 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1994). “The extent to which damage awards are recoverable from a municipality is set forth in 42 Pa.C.S. § 8553, which provides in pertinent part: (b) Amounts recoverable.”

Zauflik v. Pennsbury Sch. Dist., 72 A.3d 773 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2013). “42 Pa.C.S. § 8553. Section 8553 of the Tort Claims Act addresses limitations in damages, and provides, in relevant part: (a) General rule.”

Sanchez ex rel. Rivera v. Montanez, 645 A.2d 383 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1994).

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.