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: Rescue Situations
A mother, as the representative of her deceased son’s estate, sued a sheriff’s deputy, claiming that he violated her son’s substantive due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment by stopping several bystanders from performing CPR on her son after he attempted to commit suicide by hanging himself. A federal appeals court overturned the trial court decision denying the deputy qualified immunity, which it held analyzed this case under the erroneous assumption that a deliberate indifference level of culpability was sufficient. Rather, the appeals court held that the deputy’s actions cannot be deemed to violate clearly established substantive due process rights, unless the jury found that he acted with a level of culpability more than reckless interference with bystanders’ attempted rescue efforts. In this case, the appeals court could not conclude that the deputy's reckless or deliberately indifferent interference with bystanders’ rescue attempts was sufficient to constitute a violation of the plaintiff's clearly established substantive due process rights. The appeals court found that the deputy’s actions would rise to that necessary level should the jury find that the deputy acted for the purpose of causing harm to the plaintiff’s son. The court explained that, if the jury finds that the deputy intended to cause harm to the plaintiff’s son in the form of death or serious brain injury, and finds the other circumstances it assumed in this summary judgment posture, then the plaintiff would have proved a violation of clearly established substantive due process rights. The appeals court remanded for further proceedings in light of its ruling. Waldron v. Spicher, #18-14536, 954 F.3d 1297 (11th Cir. 2020).
A 19-year-old college freshman attended a party one December evening, and left around 11:15 p.m. He was discovered the next morning, lying face down in the snow in a remote area of the city near a river. The passerby who found him called 911. Employees of the fire department, some of whom were certified emergency medical technicians, performed a 30-second check on his pulse by holding his wrist, which was frostbitten and cold to the touch. Failing to find a heartbeat, they pronounced him dead, and cancelled the ambulance, calling police to the scene. Paramedics who had arrived did not separately evaluate the student, but left after two minutes when fire personnel informed them he was dead. Police who arrived treated the area as a possible crime scene and notified the medical examiner’s office. Two investigators from that office examined the body and based on their report, an assistant medical examiner did not visit the scene. An autopsy determined that the student had died of hypothermia. His father asserted that his son actually died several hours after the emergency responder first declared him dead. He sued the city, the county, and several city and county employees. He claimed that the defendants, by “prematurely” declaring his son dead had cut off possible aid, and caused his death in violation of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. A federal appeals court upheld the dismissal with prejudice of the lawsuit. It found that the plaintiff failed to identify a clearly established right that had been violated, and that defendants were entitled to qualified immunity, as they did not intentionally deny emergency aid to someone they believed to be alive. “As a general rule, state actors are not liable for failing to save individuals in life-threatening situations.” While medical guidelines that were not followed in this case, directing first responders to begin CPR and rewarming, even where a hypothermia victim appears dead, might be the basis for a state law negligence claim, it was not sufficient for a federal constitutional claim. Anderson v. City of Minneapolis, #18-1941, 2019 U.S. App. Lexis 24752, 2019 WL 3925953 (8th Cir.).
Persons injured during a train
derailment and volunteer firefighters filed a federal civil rights lawsuit
claiming that a county and its sheriff unlawfully prevented the firefighters
from engaging in rescue efforts that might have limited those injuries. A
federal appeals court ruled that the sheriff's actions in barring the entry of
the volunteer firefighters into the areas of the derailment did not violate the
injured persons' due process rights since the sheriff did make provisions for
eventual rescue of them by professional firefighters. The volunteer
firefighters had no constitutionally protected interest in their volunteer
positions. Excluding volunteers from a dangerous emergency situation, while
allowing professional firefighters to enter was a "conceivably legitimate"
governmental goal. Hale v. Bexar County, #08-50820, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 16498
(Unpub. 5th Cir.).
Paralegals and police
officers were not entitled to immunity under California law in lawsuit
contending that they took actions which increased the risk that a man would die
from him bullet wounds when they allegedly prevented other persons from
assisting him or taking him to the hospital. The plaintiff decedent's estate
alleged that the defendants acted in bad faith or with gross negligence.
Mitchell v. County of San Diego, No. 05-56657, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 16155 (9th
Cir.).
County law enforcement officers, under the facts
alleged by a mother in a lawsuit over the death of her son, could be found to
have taken actions which increased the risk that he would die from his bullet
wounds, to the extent that they allegedly prevented other people from either
transporting him to a hospital or assisting him. The facts alleged were also
sufficient to establish a claim for negligent provision of medical services by
county paramedics. Additionally, the appeals court found that the officers and
paramedics were not entitled to immunity under California state law for their
actions, when the plaintiff claimed that they acted in bad faith or with gross
negligence. Mitchell v. County of San Diego, No. 05-56657, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis
16155 (9th Cir.).
Police officers who allegedly failed to summon
ambulance for an hour and a half after responding to 911 call reporting man
suffering from gunshot wounds were not entitled to summary judgment in wrongful
death lawsuit. Decedent's estate claimed that officers had also told a neighbor
who wanted to assist the injured man to go away. While officers may not have
had a duty to respond to the call, once they voluntarily undertook to take
charge of the scene, they had a duty not to harm the injured man. Torres v.
City of Chicago, No. 1-03-0357, 2004 Ill. App. Lexis 1115 (1st Dist.).
[2004 LR Nov]
Federal appeals court overturns jury verdict in
favor of law enforcement defendants who allegedly interfered with the efforts
of private persons to rescue a man who jumped into a river, and failed to offer
a reasonable alternative rescue service. Court holds that
"cumulative-error" doctrine should apply to civil cases, and that a new
trial was required because of a number of evidentiary errors made by the trial
court. Beck v. Haik, No. 01-2723 2004 U.S. App. Lexis 15590 (6th Cir.). [2004
LR Sep]
Even if police officers acted
willfully and wantonly in failing to rescue victims of a residential fire, they
were protected against liability under Illinois law based on governmental
immunity for discretionary actions under 745 ILCS 10/2-201. The officers, the
court finds, had a policy decision to make in balancing their possible chance
of success in rescuing the fire victims against the risk to their own safety.
Fender v. Town of Cicero, 807 N.E.2d 606 (Ill. App. 1st Dist. 2004). [N/R]