I had to reformat that before I could read it:
(1) in self-protection as provided in 18 Pa.C.S. § 505 30 (relating to use of force in self-protection);
(2) in the protection of other persons as provided in 18 Pa.C.S. § 506 (relating to use of force for the protection of other persons);
(3) for the protection of property as provided in 18 Pa.C.S. § 507 (relating to use of force for the protection of property);
(4) in law enforcement as provided in 18 Pa.C.S. § 508 (relating to use of force in law enforcement); or
(5) consistent with the actor's special responsibility for care, discipline or safety of others as provided in 18 Pa.C.S. § 509 (relating to use of force by persons with special responsibility for care, discipline or safety of others) is justified in using such force and shall be immune from civil liability for personal injuries sustained by a perpetrator which were caused by the acts or omissions of the actor as a result of the use of force.
(b) Attorney fees and costs.--If the actor who satisfies the requirements of subsection (a) prevails in a civil action initiated by or on behalf of a perpetrator against the actor, the court shall award reasonable expenses to the actor. Reasonable expenses shall include, but not be limited to, attorney fees, expert witness fees, court costs and compensation for loss of income.
(c) Definition.--As used in this section, the term "perpetrator" shall mean a person against whom an actor is justified in using force as provided by 18 Pa.C.S. § 505, 506,
Thanks for posting that. I wasn't aware this was being considered this year, let alone having been passed. As you note, this won't protect you from being sued, but it does protect you from liability if you prove your case.
But ... it's a lousy law in two ways. First, if you have already been tested by the criminal system, and possibly even been before a grand jury, to determine that you should not be charged criminally, why should the perp (or his heirs) be allowed to drag you into court again with a civil suit? The law in other states blocks such suits entirely, which is the way it should be.
Secondly, this law says that if you prevail, the other party will pay for your costs. Those costs may be several to many thousands of dollars, probably in the tens of thousands of dollars. It is unlikely that a career criminal or his family will have that kind of money, so this is a law that has no teeth. Saying the perp will pay your costs won't make it happen, so you can (and will) be out-of-pocket the cost of your defense in a civil suit. A "real" civil immunity law is designed to make this unnecessary. In Florida, for example, a perp simply cannot sue you ... period ... if it has been ruled a "good shoot." That's the way it SHOULD be.
Moreover, reading this law closely, it makes me wonder if it applies to a shooting. It seems more like this law applies to cases in which a perpetrator is injured while in custody and sues, alleging that his injuries were caused by the use of excessive force while he was in custody. Do you have the legislative history and discussion on this law? Are you sure it applies the way you think it does, to self-defense shootings?