AELE LAW LIBRARY OF CASE SUMMARIES:
Civil Liability of
Law Enforcement Agencies & Personnel
Back to list of subjects Back to Legal Publications Menu
Public Protection: Motoring Public & Pedestrians
Monthly Law Journal Article: Civil Liability for Failure to Protect The Motoring Public and Pedestrians, 2018 (10) AELE Mo. L. J. 101.
A married couple were driving south on a highway. An officer on patrol was traveling in the same direction. The officer observed a traffic offense committed by a driver in the northbound lane, and he turned around to pursue that car, allegedly at speeds of over 100 miles-per-hour. Several people observed him driving recklessly. He lost control while negotiating a curve. His vehicle then spun around, crossed the centerline into southbound traffic, and crashed into the couple’s car, seriously injuring the husband and killing the wife. The officer later pled guilty to vehicular homicide, which requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt of reckless or grossly negligent driving, and reckless endangerment. The husband, individually and as administrator of his wife’s estate, filed a federal civil rights lawsuit alleging a “state-created danger” theory of liability. A federal appeals court overturned the denial of the defendant’s motion for dismissal based on qualified immunity. It was not clearly established at the time of the incident that the officer’s conduct, as alleged in the complaint, could give rise to constitutional liability under the Fourteenth Amendment. The court stated, however, that it hoped to establish clear law with its opinion. Sauers v. Borough of Nesquehoning, #17-1591, 2018 U.S. App. Lexis 27890 (3rd Cir.).
The estates of two people killed in a drunk driving accident
on a Native American reservation sued the federal government under the Federal
Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. 2674, arguing that tribal police were
negligent in failing to locate and arrest the drunk driver prior to the
accident. A federal appeals court upheld the dismissal of the claim, finding
that, under South Dakota law, applicable to the defendant under the FTCA, there
was no mandatory duty on police to protect a particular person or class of
people absent a special relationship. The tribal police in this case did
nothing that increased the risk of harm to the decedents by failing to arrest
the drunk driver after his erratic driving was reported. Sorace v. United
States, #14-2683, 788 F.3d 758 (8th Cir. 2015).
After an SUV collided
with a center divider, a 911 operator allegedly told callers that California
Highway Patrol officers were on the way. The 911 operator did not put into the
computer that the disabled SUV was blocking traffic lanes, as a result of which
the call was assigned to a patrol unit that was further away, rather than one
close by. A Greyhound bus subsequently collided with the SUV, resulting in
personal injury and wrongful death lawsuits by passengers. Greyhound argued the
911 operator's actions had helped cause the second accident. Rejecting
liability, an intermediate California appeals court ruled that the California
Highway Patrol had no duty to come to anyone's aid in the absence of a special
relationship entered into because an officer's affirmative acts caused the
peril or increased it, but no such special relationship existed with the
injured bus passengers. Greyhound Lines v. Department of the California Highway
Patrol, #F063590, 2013 Cal. App. Lexis 117.
A jury found state troopers not liable for the
death of a motorcyclist struck by another motorcycle at a roadblock that had
been created to stop speeding motorcycles. The appeals court upheld this
verdict and rejected the argument that the jury should have received
instructions concerning the use of deadly force and what justifies its use.
There was no indication that the troopers used any force likely to have deadly
effects, so such an instruction would have been improper. A traffic stop of
cars to prevent speeding motorcycles from racing down a highway is not the
equivalent of firing a gun at a person. A general instruction about excessive
force, with no mention of deadly force or its requirements was adequate.
Terranova v. State of New York, #09-5025, 2012 U.S. App. Lexis 7587
(2nd Cir.).
An intoxicated driver struck a motorist who had
been lying injured on the road after his own apparent alcohol-related accident.
He sued two highway patrolmen who responded to his accident for failure to
protect him from the intoxicated driver. A federal appeals court upheld summary
judgment for the defendants, as the evidence did not show that they had taken
the plaintiff into custody and held him against his will, triggering a duty to
protect him. The officers did not move the motorist, awaiting the arrival of an
ambulance, as they feared he had suffered a spinal injury, but they did attempt
to stop the oncoming vehicle driven by the intoxicated driver, who ignored
their directions. Dodd v. Jones, #09-2016; 623 F.3d 563 (8th Cir. 2010).
An officer who served as a crash investigator was
dispatched to the scene of an accident that took place between a female
motorist and a male motorcycle rider. The officer, who observed the motorcycle
rider lying face down after having been thrown and landing head first on the
street, believed that he was dead. Other officers were already on the scene. He
later claimed that the female motorist, while "a little shaken up,"
had told him that she was not injured. He handed back her driver's license,
registration, and insurance card, and suggested that she could leave her
disabled car at the parking lot of a nearby gas station, which she did. The
officer returned to his vehicle to complete paperwork, and did not inquire as
to how the motorist was getting home or offer to assist her in doing so. The
elderly female motorist declined an offer from the gas station attendant to
drive her home if she would wait there until closing time, and she stated that
she could walk home. As she attempted to do so, she was struck by a hit and run
driver as she crossed a street, suffering serious injuries, and was
hospitalized for various surgeries and treatments until she died. A lawsuit against
the township and officer contended that they were responsible for her injuries
at the hands of the hit and run driver by "abandoning" her at the
scene of the first accident. The trial court and intermediate appeals court
entered summary judgment for the defendants, finding them immune from liability
for the officer's performance of discretionary acts at the scene of the first
accident. The courts rejected an argument that the officer negligently
performed ministerial duties in connection with the accident, for which state
law does not provide immunity, since the female motorist had not asked him to
provide aid. This was also not a case in which the motorist was plainly
incapacitated, so that even if the officer was not exercising discretion, there
was no evidence that he "negligently performed a ministerial task."
Pappas v. Union Township, #A-5850-08T2, 2010 N.J. Super. Unpub. Lexis 2054
(A.D.).
A motorist was arrested for driving under the
influence of alcohol and driving under suspension. Released from jail the
following afternoon, he returned to the police station to retrieve his vehicle.
Finding no "hold" on the vehicle, an officer authorized its release.
The next morning, the motorist drove his vehicle while intoxication and
collided with another motorist's car, resulting in the death of both drivers.
The estate of the other motorist sued officers, claiming that they had breached
duties to him by failing to remove license plates from his car and by releasing
the vehicle to him. The plaintiff claimed that state statutes required that the
vehicle be held until the intoxicated motorist's court appearance, since he had
been driving on a suspended license, and that another statute required that the
vehicle remain impounded because of his DUI conviction within the prior
six-year period. The Ohio Supreme Court ruled that the officers could not
receive summary judgment based on the "public duty rule," since the
plaintiff estate claimed more than mere negligence and argued that the officers
acted in a reckless and wanton manner. Estate of Graves v. City of Circleville,
#2009-0014, 2010 Ohio Lexis 60.
Police officer's alleged failure to remove a
drunk driver, a fellow officer, from the road, was insufficient to impose
liability on him for injuries others later suffered when they were hit by his
car. A federal appeals court found that the officer's alleged failure to act
did not "create" the danger, and that the drunken officer would have
been in the same condition even if he had not encountered his fellow officer.
Bilbili v. Klein, No. 05-3496, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 20694 (3rd Cir.).
A motorist claimed that she was injured while
moving her disabled vehicle, after she was instructed to do so by a police
officer who believed that it posed a traffic hazard on a busy road. The car
lacked power, but the officer allegedly told her to "just put it in
neutral and push it back, steering with the steering wheel. "He allegedly
told her that if she did not move it, it would be towed. She was injured when it
started rolling backwards down the incline of a driveway, dragging her face
first and face down, down a hill, until it collided with some trees. A federal
appeals court reversing a jury award of $1 in nominal damages and a trial court
award of attorneys' fees, found that no reasonable and properly instructed jury
could have found a violation of constitutional rights under either the Fourth
Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause under these
circumstances. Lockhart-Bembery v. Sauro, No. 06-1720, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis
18844 (1st Cir.).
Officers were entitled to qualified immunity for
failing to prevent an illegal drag race that resulted in injuries when a car
crashed into a crowd of spectators. While the officers allegedly arrived on the
scene approximately an hour before the race began, and were alleged to have
told participants to "go ahead with the race" and that they were not
there to arrest anyone, there could be no liability under either a
"state-created danger" theory or a "direct injury" theory.
The plaintiffs failed to show, for purposes of the "direct injury"
theory of liability, that the officers acted for the purpose of causing harm,
even though the alleged conduct, if true, demonstrated "incredibly poor
judgment" by the officers. For purposes of the "state-created
danger" theory of liability, the court found that a prior decision
involving a death in the same drag race, Jones v. Reynolds, #04-2320, 438 F.3d
685 (6th Cir 2006), was controlling. In that prior decision, the appeals court
found that there was no evidence that the officers knew or had reason to know
that the decedent "specifically was in any more danger than any other
citizen in the area that evening," and therefore could not be said to have
placed the decedent in the danger which resulted in her death. This same
analysis, the court found, applied to the claims of the plaintiffs, who were
allegedly injured by the same car that killed the decedent. Draw v. City
of Lincoln Park, No. 06-1959, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 14707 (6th Cir.).
City was not liable for the death of an elderly
motorist struck by a number of vehicles while trying to cross a highway on foot
to get back to his van, which had run out of gas. He was attempting to do so
before the city towed his vehicle under a program it had commenced under which
it attempted to tow stalled vehicles from city freeways after a few minutes in
order to prevent obstacles to the flow of traffic. A federal trial court
rejected the plaintiff estate's argument that the towing program violated the
equal protection rights of elderly and disabled drivers. Such motorists, the
court found, were not a protected class for equal protection purposes, and
there was no fundamental right to be free from having a disabled vehicle towed
from the highway. Estate of Kahng v. City of Houston, No. H-07-0402, 2007 U.S.
Dist. Lexis 30922 (S.D. Tex.).
City and police officers were not liable, under
the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, for the death of a child
struck as he crossed a street on foot by a vehicle that an officer lent to an
informant. The appeals court ruled that, even if the city had a custom of
encouraging officers to provide vehicles to informants with known histories of
alcohol or drug use in exchange for information, that was insufficient for
liability. Persons allegedly placed in danger as a result of those actions were
not intentionally or recklessly placed in such danger, nor were the alleged
actions conscience shocking. The appeals court also rejected claims based on an
alleged failure to adequately investigate the accident, since there was no
statutory, common law, or constitutional right to an investigation. Mitchell v.
McNeil, No. 06-5631, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 11326 (6th Cir.).
Officers who confronted allegedly intoxicated
female motorist in the driveway of her estranged boyfriend's house were not
liable, on the basis of the failure to detain her, for her subsequent accident,
which occurred while she was speeding, intoxicated, and running a red light,
which resulted in a person's death. The officers' actions or failure to act did
not either create or enhance the risk that the motorist's intoxicated driving
would result in an injury. Koulta v. Merchez, No. 06-1539, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis
4127 (6th Cir.).[N/R]
Police officer and police chief were not liable
under federal civil rights law for injuries U.S. Customs officer suffered when
he was struck by a city police department vehicle being driven by an escaped
arrestee. Rios v. City of Del Rio, No. 04-50774, 444 F.3d 417 (5th Cir. 2006).
[2006 LR Sep]
City was not liable for damages to injured
passenger and estate of deceased passenger injured when their vehicle was
struck by participants in an illegal street race. The plaintiffs failed to show
that the roadway where the race was conducted was "inherently"
defective, and there was no evidence linking the alleged absence or inadequacy
of lighting on the road to the conduct of the racers. Additionally, the damages
were caused by the conduct of third parties, and were unrelated to the
condition of city property. City of San Diego v. Superior Court, No. D046281,
40 Cal. Rptrs. 3d 26 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 2006). [N/R]
Tow truck driver struck by oncoming vehicle after
extracting damaged car from a ditch at the scene of an accident failed to show
that California Highway Patrol officers did anything wrong to create or enhance
the risk of harm to him. Officers owed him no duty of protection against being
struck by traffic. Officer Safety Manual, which was not adopted as a
regulation, created no duty to protect. Minch v. California Highway Patrol, No.
C050338, 2006 Cal. App. Lexis 924. [2006 LR Aug]
State troopers owed no duty to auto accident
victims at icy spot on an interstate highway, since they were not aware of them
and had left the scene after handling three earlier accidents there. State
police could not, therefore, be held liable for the accident victims' injuries
on a theory that the troopers caused their accident by failing to control and
direct traffic around the icy spot. Daubenspeck v. Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania, 894 A.2d 867 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006). [N/R]
Police officer was not entitled to summary
judgment on motorist's claim that he was negligent in requiring that she move
her inoperable car from the road without providing her with assistance,
resulting in her losing control of the vehicle as she pushed it and being
dragged down a steep embankment, suffering serious injuries. Court also denies
summary judgment to officer on federal civil rights claim alleging that his
actions shocked the conscience and created or increased the danger of her being
injured. Lockhart-Bembert v. Town of Wayland Police Dept., No. CIV.A. 04-10581,
404 F. Supp. 2d 373 (D. Mass. 2005). [N/R]
Officer who pursued motorist into crowded
downtown area could not be held liable for injuries pedestrian suffered when
pursued driver took his car onto the sidewalk. Officer, who did not even exceed
the speed limit while following the car, could not be said to have acted in a
willful and wanton manner under Illinois law, as required for liability. Wade
v. City of Chicago, No. 1-04-0642, 2006 Ill. App. Lexis 201. [2006 LR May]
Police officers were not liable for a bystander's
death at a street drag race when they did not have custody of the decedent when
the accident occurred, and had not placed her in any additional danger than she
voluntarily assumed before the officers arrived on the scene. This remained
true even if they had an opportunity to stop the drag race from occurring and
failed to do so. Jones v. Reynolds, No. 04-2320, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 4940 (6th
Cir.). [2006 LR Apr]
Police officers and supervisors' alleged
encouragement and "active facilitation" of off-duty officer's drunken
driving during twelve-hour drinking binge could constitute a
"state-created danger" violating the due process constitutional
rights of a pregnant woman, her fetus, and two others struck and killed by the
off-duty officer as he sped through a red light. Individual defendants were, however,
entitled to qualified immunity from liability, as the law on the issue was not
clearly established in 2001. Pena v. Deprisco, No. 03-7876, 2005 U.S. App.
Lexis 26911 (2d Cir.). [2006 LR Feb]
City of New York was not liable for injuries
suffered by parade spectators struck by a vehicle in the parade, based on a
theory that the police department had been negligent in screening vehicles
participating in the parade. Even if the city had assumed a duty to screen the
vehicles, there was no special relationship between the city and the spectators
injured, and therefore no special duty to protect the plaintiffs against harm.
Armstrong v. Scott, 801 N.Y.S.2d 822 (A.D. 2nd Dept. 2005). [N/R]
City could not be held liable for either injuries
suffered by pedestrian struck by car or injuries suffered by motorist when
police officer ordered motorist to move her car forward after accident and she
moved it backwards instead, crushing the pedestrian's legs. There was no
special relationship between the pedestrian and the officer, and they had no
direct contact with each other. In a second case, a county could not be held
liable for injuries a motorist suffered after being told by an officer to move
his car to a nearby service station, despite the motorist's statement that he
had chest pains and was not feeling well. The motorist subsequently lost
control of his car and suffered serious injuries after driving it into a
guardrail and a telephone pole. The motorist did not, the court noted, tell the
officer that he was too ill to drive, and "we cannot expect the police to
make a refined, expert medical diagnosis of a motorist's latent
condition." Kovit v. Estate of Hallums, 829 N.E.2d 1188 (N.Y. 2005). [N/R]
New York's highest court, in two cases involving
police interactions with motorists, finds that there was no special
relationship with injured parties and the officers, barring liability for
failure to protect them. City was therefore not liable for injuries to man
struck by car when officer instructed motorist to move at the scene of an
accident, and county was not liable for injuries ill motorist suffered when he
lost control of his vehicle after officer instructed him to move it from the
side of the highway. Kovit v. Estate of Hallums, #62, 63, 2005 N.Y. Lexis 1057.
[2005 LR Jul]
Police officer questioning motorist at the side
of his vehicle at the site of a multi-vehicle collision could not be held
liable for injuries he suffered when another car going by pinned to motorist
against his car. The officer made a discretionary decision not to use flares or
cones for the purpose of redirecting traffic around the accident scene. In
asking the motorist to speak to her at the scene of the accident for purposes
of an investigation, she did not take the motorist into custody or make him
surrender his freedom of movement or judgment. Lassiter v. Cohn, No. COA04-672,
607 S.E.2d 688 (N.C. App. 2005). [N/R]
No liability for death of motorcycle driver and
injuries to motorcycle passenger based on deputy sheriff's earlier failure to
arrest motorist who did not have a valid driver's license. Unlicensed driver,
who drove away from the encounter with the deputy, subsequently collided with
the motorcycle. Deputy owed no special duty to protect the motorcycle driver or
passenger, but only a duty to the general public, which was insufficient to
impose liability under Georgia state law. Holcomb v. Walden, No. A04A2333, 607
S.E.2d 893 (Ga. App. 2004). [N/R]
Motorist who allegedly was injured when a police
officer directed him to move his vehicle off of the shoulder of an expressway
was not required to show that there was a special relationship between the
officer and himself in order to pursue a claim against the county which
employed the officer. The officer's alleged negligent conduct was properly
characterized as "misfeasance rather than nonfeasance," so not
showing of a special relationship was required, as there would be for imposing
liability for failing to act to provide protection to an individual. The court
also found that there was a triable issue of fact as to whether the officer was
negligent under the circumstances. Lazan v. County of Suffolk, 783 N.Y.S.2d 70
(A.D. 2nd Dept. 2004). [N/R]
When the Florida highway patrol assured a man who
reported stalled vehicle on an expressway that an officer would be dispatched
to the scene, it assumed no duty to motorists who subsequently died when they
collided with the stalled vehicle after no officer was sent.Pollock v. Fla.
Dept. of Highway Patrol, No. SC99-8, SC99-41, 2004 Fla. Lexis 902 (Fla. 2004)
[2004 LR Jul]
Motorist allegedly injured because state police
officers negligently failed to replace extinguished road flares at the scene of
an accident failed to show any "special relationship" between himself
and the state of New York which would impose any duty to take reasonable
measures to protect him. Eckert v. State of N.Y., 771 N.Y.S. 2d 132 (A.D. 2d
Dept. 2004). [N/R]
State troopers were not liable for death of
motorist struck by out of control vehicle as she took field sobriety test at
the side of the highway. Estate of George v. Michigan, 63 Fed. Appx. 208 (6th
Cir. 2003), upholding Estate of George v. Michigan, 136 F. Supp. 2d 695 (E.D.
Mich. 2001), previously reported in the September 2001 Liability Reporter.
[N/R]
Police officers were entitled to qualified
immunity on a claim that they violated the due process rights of a motorcyclist
by ordering him to ride his bike away from a restaurant premises despite his
allegedly intoxicated condition at the time. The officers exercised their
discretion in good faith in making a determination as to the degree of his
impairment at the time, and therefore were not liable for his subsequent death.
Morris v. Johnson, No. A03A0111, 585 S.E.2d 375 (Ga. App. 2003). [N/R]
Officers who picked up an intoxicated man at
night on a road and gave him a ride to a convenience store, leaving him there,
were not liable for his subsequent death by being struck by a vehicle as he lay
in the middle of the road. Officers did not create the danger posed by him
walking in an intoxicated condition, nor did they put him in a more dangerous
position than he was before they picked him up. Cartwright v.
City of Marine City, No. 02-1728, 336 F.3d 487 (6th Cir. 2003). [2003 LR Nov]
Sheriff's department was 55% at fault in case
where a pedestrian was hit by a drunk driver while helping to direct traffic
around an accident scene. The injured pedestrian sued both the drunk driver and
the sheriff, claiming sheriff's deputies negligently failed to stop at the
first accident scene. Award against sheriff was limited to proceeds of $1
million insurance policy, from which attorneys' fees for defense were
deductible, but the cost of an appellate bond was not. Edwards v. Daugherty,
No. 02-354, 848 So. 2d 787 (La. App. 3d Cir. 2003). [N/R]
Deputies and sheriff were not liable for injuries
suffered by a pedestrian on the side of the road when he was struck by a
drunken driver while being detained by the deputies, who were searching for an
escaped jail prisoner. The deputies activated their overhead lights and
flashing headlights, and also pulled their vehicle as close as possible to the
suspects they detained. The fault for the injuries rested with the drunk
driver, who admitted that he "blanked out" or fell asleep after
seeing the lights, and not with the deputies or the sheriff. Freeman v. Tate,
847 So. 2d 800 (La. App. 2003). [N/R]
Police officers' failure to arrest
minor intoxicated motorist results in $1.14 million award against officers and
municipality for the subsequent death of his passenger in a vehicle accident.
Intermediate Illinois appeals court rules that officers, once they had grounds
to believe minor was violating state "zero tolerance" law, had no
discretion but to enforce the law, preventing him from driving after having
consumed alcohol. Their "willful and wanton" failure to do so placed
the case outside of the immunity normally granted from liability for failure to
make an arrest. Ozik v. Gramins, #01-00-3280, ___ N.E.2d __, 2003 Ill. App.
Lexis 846. [2003 LR Aug]
Jurors could reasonably find that actions by state
police in failing to send assistance to truck driver in backing an 18-wheeler
truck loaded with overhanging poles out onto the highway did not render them liable
for the deaths of two occupants of a car which collided with the truck as it
backed out after sunset without a police escort. Officers believed that driver
would not make such an attempt after sunset, when the driver indicated that he
knew it would be illegal for him to be on the road at that time. Trial judge
properly found sheriffs' office, however, 20% at fault for failing to respond
to request for assistance. General damages of $400,000 to each of ten adult
children of two parents killed ordered, increasing prior award of $200,000
each, based on children's close relationship with parents, and fact that the
parents were killed on Mother's Day, after celebrating that day with their
children. Davis v. Witt, #01-894, 831 So. 2d 1075 (La. App. 2002). [N/R]
Even if city had an intentional policy of not
enforcing its speeding laws, that would be insufficient to impose liability on
municipality for the death of two children killed by an allegedly speeding
motorist as they attempted to cross the street. Childrens' parents also failed
to establish liability based on purported inadequate investigation. White v.
City of Toledo, 217 F. Supp. 2d 838 (N.D. Ohio 2002). [2003 LR Jan]
County sheriff was not liable for injury to
driver and passengers of motor vehicle injured when they hit rock on the
highway that the sheriff observed and failed to remove. Idaho law would not
impose on the sheriff a common law duty to remove rocks on the highway or warn
motorists of them, and any statutory duty to remove obstructions from the
highway were on the state, not the county. Udy v. Custer County, Nos. 26345,
26346, 34 P.3d 1069 (Idaho 2001). [N/R]
City and sheriff had no duty, under Louisiana
law, to control traffic for the protection of pedestrians, and therefore were
not liable for injury to visitor to Halloween haunted house suffered when he
was struck by a car on an adjacent street. Arthur v. City of DeRidder, No.
01-0305, 799 So. 2d 589 (La. App. 3d Cir. 2001). [2002 LR Mar]
City was not liable for injuries to
passengers in vehicle struck by intoxicated driver who had been released on his
own recognizance and been driven to city impound lot by police officer. Boutin
v. Perrin, No. 00-862, 796 So. 2d 691 (La. App. 2001). [N/R]
Officer was not liable for failure to extract
trapped motorist from burning vehicle after accident. Officer did what he could
to attempt rescue and did nothing to place motorist in added danger. Opoku v.
City of Philadelphia, 152 F. Supp. 2d 809 (E.D. Pa. 2001). [2002 LR Jan]
347:173 Motorist who fled into the desert
following his involvement in a two car collision and subsequently died had no
due process right to a thorough search by officers, but his estate could pursue
an equal protection claim and inadequate training claim based on alleged policy
of not searching for him because of mistaken belief that he was a Native
American fleeing to a nearby reservation. Amos, Estate of, v. City of Page,
Arizona, No. 99-16214, 257 F.3d 1086 (9th Cir. 2001).
345:142 State troopers were not liable for death
of motorist struck by out of control vehicle as she took field sobriety test at
the side of the highway. George, Estate of, Ex Rel. George v. Michigan, 136 F.
Supp. 2d 695 (E.D. Mich. 2001).
346:155 Tennessee Supreme Court rules that state
statute authorizing claims against state for negligent care of personal
property does not allow claims for personal injuries caused by such negligence,
but merely claims for loss or damage to the property; state was not liable for
injuries to county deputy hit by a motorist while assisting passenger with
nonoperating car at scene of state trooper's arrest of speeding motorist.
Stewart v. State of Tennessee, 33 S.W.2d 785 (Tenn. 2000).
327:44 UPDATE: $3.9 million jury award against
State of Alaska to family of couple and their 2-year-old grandson who died of
hypothermia reduced to $1.48 million; lawsuit asserted state troopers knew of
stalled motorists' plight but took no action for over two days. Kiokum v. State
of Alaska, 4BC-97-00274CI (Alaska Super. Ct., Bethel, Alaska), reported in The
National Law Journal, p. A13 (Feb. 7, 2000).
329:75 California highway patrol officer owed a
duty of reasonable care to occupants of a motor vehicle that he ordered to pull
over to highway's center median rather than right shoulder; appeals court
reinstates personal injury lawsuit by vehicle occupants injured when an
oncoming truck struck their vehicle from behind. Lugtu v. California Highway
Patrol, #D032518, 2000 Cal. App. LEXIS 216, 94 Cal. Rptr. 2d 113.
329:76 Arizona city owed a duty to a motorist
injured on a state roadway by a piece of metal lying there despite a state
statute giving the state the exclusive obligation to maintain the roadway;
city's officers routinely patrolled the roadway and allegedly routinely removed
such dangers or reported them to state authorities and therefore might be
liable for failure to do so in this instance. McDonald v. City of Prescott, #1
CA-CV 99-0128, 5 P.3d 900 (Ariz. App. 2000).
325:13 State of Alaska found liable for $3.9
million to family of couple and their 2-year-old grandson who died of
hypothermia while walking eight miles to town from disabled vehicle; state
troopers were allegedly informed of abandoned vehicle and a "help"
message carved in the snow, but took no action for over two days. Kiokum v.
State of Alaska, 4BC-97-00274CI (Alaska Super. Ct., Bethel, Alaska), reported
in The National Law Journal, p. A15 (November 15, 1999).