PA Supreme Court: Parent Does Not Commit Endangering Welfare of a Child by Allowing Child to Ride in Uber Without Car Seat

Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak Goldstein

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has decided the case of Commonwealth v. Howard, holding that a person does not commit the crime of Endangering the Welfare of a Child (“EWOC”) by allowing her child to ride in a ride-share without a car seat. This decision is significant because so many people rely on Ubers, Lyfts, Taxis, and other ride-sharing services. It should be noted that a parent can still be found guilty of EWOC if there are other facts presented (i.e. the parent was aware that the driver had been driving unsafely). However, a defendant cannot be found guilty simply because their child was not in a car seat while riding in a ride-sharing car even if the car later gets into an accident.

Commonwealth v. Howard

The defendant was riding in a taxi with her child. While driving near Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, the taxi was involved in a three-vehicle accident. Specifically, the taxi driver rear-ended the car in front of her which then hit another vehicle. It should be noted, there was no evidence to suggest that the driver was driving in an unsafe or reckless manner before the accident occurred. At the time of the accident, the defendant was sitting in the front passenger seat of the vehicle and the child was sitting in the back seat, on the passenger side. There was no car seat in the vehicle and none of the occupants were wearing seatbelts. Thankfully, none of the individuals involved sustained serious injuries. 

A Police Officer then arrived on scene. While speaking with the defendant, the defendant told the officer that “she had feared that her daughter would fly from the back seat and hit the windshield.” Based on this conversation and the above-mentioned facts, the officer arrested the defendant. The defendant was later charged with reckless endangerment of another person (“REAP”) and EWOC. The defendant elected to proceed by a bench trial. At the conclusion of the trial, the defendant was convicted of both charges. The trial court imposed a sentence of one-year probation for the crime of EWOC and no further penalty for the crime of REAP. The defendant then filed a timely appeal to the Pennsylvania Superior Court arguing that the evidence was insufficient to sustain her convictions. 

The Pennsylvania Superior Court’s Opinion 

A divided Pennsylvania Superior Court reversed her conviction for the crime of REAP finding that her actions did not rise to the level of criminal recklessness. However, the Superior Court affirmed her conviction for EWOC. In making its decision, the Superior Court reviewed the EWOC statute. In its analysis of the statute it found that a defendant is guilty of EWOC when: 

1) he or she is “aware of his or her duty to protect the child; 2) is aware that the child is in circumstances that threaten the child’s physical or psychological welfare; and 3) has either failed to act or has taken actions so lame and meager that such actions cannot reasonably be expected to protect the child’s physical or psychological welfare.” 

Based on its review of the statute and the facts of the defendant’s case, the Superior Court found that because the defendant knew the vehicle did not have a car seat and “knowingly failed to fasten her daughter’s seatbelt,” she was consequently guilty of EWOC. Further, the Superior Court found that EWOC does not require that a child be in imminent threat of physical harm, but “only requires proof of circumstances that could threaten the child’s physical or psychological welfare.” Undeterred, the defendant then filed a petition of allowance of appeal with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court agreed to hear the defendant’s case. On appeal, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court agreed to decide whether a parent riding in a taxi (or using a similar ride-sharing service) without a car seat is sufficient to support a conviction for EWOC.  

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s Decision

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed the defendant’s conviction. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court began its analysis by reviewing the EWOC statute. Based on its analysis of the statute, the Court stated that to convict a defendant of EWOC the Commonwealth must prove that a parent was aware that their conduct endangered the welfare of the child and it was not sufficient to prove that a parent is merely aware of their duty of care to their child. Further, the Court must determine whether the parental conduct at issue “offends the common sense of community and the sense of decency, propriety, and the morality which most people entertain.” 

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court found that the defendant’s actions did not offend “the common sense of community.” In the instant case, there was no evidence that the driver was engaged in unsafe or reckless driving prior to rear ending the other car. Further, the Commonwealth presented no evidence (other than the absence of a car seat) that the defendant’s conduct in allowing her child to drive in a taxi without a car seat endangered the welfare of her child. Finally, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court reviewed the Motor Vehicle Code and found that the defendant could only have been found guilty of a summary offense if she had actually been driving the vehicle. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court therefore reversed her conviction for the first-degree misdemeanor charge given that the Pennsylvania General Assembly had already deemed this conduct to be a summary offense at worst.

Facing Criminal Charges? We Can Help. 

Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyers

If you are facing criminal charges or under investigation by the police, we can help. We have successfully defended thousands of clients against criminal charges in courts throughout Pennsylvania and New Jersey. We have successfully obtained full acquittals in cases involving charges such as Conspiracy, Aggravated Assault, Rape, and Murder. Our award-winning Philadelphia criminal defense lawyers offer a free criminal defense strategy session to any potential client. Call 267-225-2545 to speak with an experienced and understanding defense attorney today.