·         For TASER^® training-related injury litigation, see Legal Aspects of Training Injuries - Part Two, 2007 (9) AELE Mo. L. J. 201 at p. 205 et seq. (Sep. 2007).

·         Also see related topics in this digest: Injuries to Employees, Workers' Compensation - Claim Validity and Workers' Compensation - Exclusive Remedy

     A fire department "live burn" training exercise got out of hand. A recruit participating in the exercise became trapped on the third floor of the three-story vacant building being burnt, and died from her injuries. Her surviving family filed a federal civil rights lawsuit claiming that the city had acted with deliberate indifference to the decedent's safety, in violation of substantive due process. Such a claim could not be pursued in the absence of any evidence that the department actually intended to inflict harm on the participating recruits, for which there was no evidence. Slaughter v. Baltimore, #10-2436, 2012 U.S. App. Lexis 11482 (4th Cir.).
     A training officer entered the area where a training exercise simulating an arrest was being enacted. He was supposed to fire his weapon into a sandbox, but failed to do that. When he pointed his gun at a prone officer playing the role of the arrestee, the weapon discharged, killing him. His surviving family filed a federal civil rights lawsuit asserting Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment claims. A federal appeals court found that the plaintiffs had not adequately alleged a Fourth Amendment excessive force claim, merely mentioning the Fourth Amendment without stating how it was violated. The Eighth Amendment claim was also inapplicable as there was no criminal prosecution or "adjudication of guilt" against the dead officer. The court did find that the failure to follow necessary safety precautions could be found to "shock the conscience" in violation of substantive due process. There was no basis for liability claims against the mayor or municipality, however, since the mayor was not involved and there was no showing that the death was caused by an official policy or custom. Due process claims against defendant officers present at the incident, including a supervisor, could proceed, as well as claims against some police defendants not present that day, but who had direct responsibility for the training exercise. Marrero-Rodriguez v. Municipality of San Juan, #11-1195, 677 F.3d 497 (1st Cir. 2012).
     Federal court dismisses a wrongful death action brought by the family of a recruit firefighter who was killed in a live burn training exercise in a three-story row house. The deceased's hose was not charged with water pressure and her team had been instructed to bypass fires on the first two floors and to proceed directly to the third floor. Reckless conduct on the part of training supervisors is not a constitutional violation. Slaughter v. Mayor of Baltimore, #L-10-1157, 2010 U.S. Dist. Lexis 127698 (D.Md.).
     Appellate court upholds the right of an injured Chicago police academy trainee to bring a workers’ comp. claim. Dodaro v. Illinois Workers’ Comp. Cmsn., #1-09-0447WC, 2010 Ill. App. Lexis 799 (1st Dist.).
     Federal court rejects a suit brought by U.S. Navy civilian police officers challenging the use of direct-impact pepper spray in while in training. The risk of injury by the spray was offset by the benefit of training. FOP v. Gates, # 08-0039, 602 F.Supp.2d 104, 2009 U.S. Dist. Lexis 20403 (D.D.C.).
     Because a police trainee had signed a liability release to participate in physically demanding training programs, he was not entitled to damages after he was injured while carrying 70-pound cooler containing the lunches of other police recruits. Such releases serve a public interest in obtaining adequately trained police force. Marcinczyk v. New Jersey Police Training Cmsn., #A-4340-07T3, 406 N.J. Super. 608, 968 A.2d 1205, 2009 N.J. Super. Lexis 94 (App. Div.).
     Federal court dismisses a suit brought by U.S. Navy civilian police officers and their unions, challenging the direct application of pepper spray into the faces of trainees. The DoD properly determined that the risk of injury by the spray was offset by the benefit of training. There was no showing that the DoD harbored a malicious or sadistic intent to injure trainees that would support a substantive due process claim. FOP v. Gates, #8-0039, 2009 U.S. Dist. Lexis 20403 (D.D.C.)
     Fourth Circuit rejects a wrongful death suit filed by the parents of a firefighter trainee. Due process does not impose a duty on municipalities to provide their employees with a safe workplace or to warn them against risks of harm. Waybright v. Fredrick Co. Dept. of Fire & Res. Serv., #07-1289, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 11755 (4th Cir.).
     U.S. District Judge rejects constitutional claims brought by the estate of a Maryland firefighter trainee that died from heat exhaustion during physical training exercises, but remands the state claims to the state court. No fact supported the application of a state-created danger theory of liability. Waybright v. Frederick Co. Fire & Rescue, #05-55, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 14432 (D. Md. 2007).
     New York court refuses to dismiss a suit brought by an officer who was injured during a tactical training exercise. The training area lacked protective floor padding. Singleton v. City of New York, #9640/06, 2006 NY Slip Op 26412, 2006 N.Y. Misc. Lexis 2928 (2006). [2006 FP Dec]
     Martial arts instructor was not liable for the injuries suffered by a student who was a willing participant. Bevolo v. Carter, #04-4220, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 9874 (7th Cir. 2006). [2006 FP Jun]
     Appellate court rejects a negligence lawsuit filed by a police student who was seriously injured while practicing arrest takedown techniques. Assumption of risk bars such claims. Saville v. Sierra College, #C047923, 2005 Cal. App. Lexis 1843 (3rd App. Dist. 2005). [2006 FP Feb]
     Anaheim police lieutenant, who suffered on-duty injuries and later was denied promotions and forced to take early retirement, wins a $5.2 million jury award. Welch v. City of Anaheim, (Orange Co. Super. Ct. 2005). {N/R}
     Illinois appellate court strikes down a "release" signed by a firefighter applicant who was injured during the agility test. However, village was not liable under a statutory immunity law. White v. Village of Homewood, 628 N.E.2d 616 and 673 N.E.2d 1092 (Ill.App. 1996). [1997 FP 153]
     Federal court dismisses all claims against an employer after an applicant suffers a fatal heart attack during the pre-employment agility test. Tafoya v. Bobroff, 865 F.Supp. 742 (D.N.M. 1994). [1995 FP 58]
     An applicant for sheriff's deputy who was injured while performing a fitness course was not entitled to damages. Chapman v. Gonzales, 824 S.W.2d 685 (Tex.App. 1992).