AELE LAW LIBRARY OF CASE SUMMARIES:
Employment & Labor Law for Public Safety Agencies
Back to list of subjects Back to Legal Publications Menu
Injuries to Applicants, Trainees, Participants & Observers
· 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
Five Los Angeles
injured police recruit officers sued the city after they were either fired or
constructively discharged when they were unable to get the necessary medical
clearances to return to the police academy. A jury decided that the city had
unlawfully discriminated against them because of physical disabilities, and
failed to provide them reasonable accommodations. An intermediate California
appeals court ruled that the plaintiffs could not prevail on a disability
discrimination claim under a state statute because they could not meet the
fitness standards for peace officers and therefore were not qualified to
perform the essential functions of police recruits. But substantial evidence
supported the jury's verdict that the city's refusal of temporary reassignment
to light duty assignments was a failure to make reasonable accommodations under
state law because of the city’s past practice of doing so before the city
changed its policy. The city policy of assigning injured recruits to light-duty
administrative positions indefinitely until their injuries healed or they
became permanently disabled ended while the plaintiffs were still recuperating
from their injuries. Rather than allowing them to remain in their light-duty
assignments, the Department asked them to resign or the Department would
terminate them, unless they could get immediate medical clearance to return to
the Academy. Past damages were awardable for this failure to reasonably
accommodate, but the appeals court agreed with the city that an award of future
economic losses based on projected lifetime earnings as police officers was
unreasonably speculative, considering the fact that they had completed only
hours or weeks of their training. Therefore, the court vacated that portion of
the damages award and the trial court's award of attorneys' fees and costs. Atkins v. City of Los Angeles,
#B257890. 8 Cal. App. 5th 696, 2017 Cal. App. Lexis 115.
The
Washington State Patrol appealed a trial court's denial of its motion for
summary judgment in a lawsuit brought by a trooper for alleged deliberately
intentional infliction of "certain injury" from being shot with a
Taser in the dart mode during training. An intermediate state appeals court,
finding that the plaintiff had presented a genuine issue of material fact on
his claim that the defendant intentionally inflicted "certain
injury," upheld the denial of summary judgment and remanded the case for
trial. The Taser exposure caused the plaintiff instant temporary pain, discomfort,
trouble breathing, and incapacitation. He was later diagnosed with a fracture
in his vertebrae and a "bulged disc." The court said that the
description, by the person responsible for developing the training program, of
the Taser's "most typical effect's, together with the Taser manufacturer's
warning that Taser probes cause "wounds," were sufficient evidence of
"certain injury" to create a material issue of fact as to that claim
allowing a lawsuit despite the providing of workers' compensation benefits.
Under state law, workers' compensation immunity from an injury lawsuit does not
apply if an employer knows of and willfully disregarded certain injury. This
exception does not depend, the court ruled, on the severity of the initial
injury that an employer deliberately causes in disregard of its knowledge that
its action will always produce this "certain injury." Whether the
defendant willfully disregarded that injury would occur was a question of fact
for the factfinder. Taken in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the
evidence submitted could be interpreted as showing that the employer knew that
the mandatory Taser training would certainly cause the injuries of the probes
inflicting wounds and the exposure to an electrical current, yet disregarded
this by still requiring the training. Michelbrink v. Wash. State Patrol,
#44035-1-II, 2014 Wash. App. Lexis 973.
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).