The Tenth District Court of Appeals recently overturned a decision that denied summary judgment to a police officer and municipality for a motor vehicle accident. See Sparks v. Klempner, 2011-Ohio-6456. The facts underlying the case were fairly straightforward and supported by police officer affidavits and cruiser camera footage. While on patrol, a Columbus police officer spotted a vehicle with a broken window that made her believe the vehicle was stolen. When she ran the plates, it turned out that she was correct. She slowly began to trail the vehicle and other officers were catching on and taking subtle steps to assist in the pursuit.
Another officer with lights on, went around the ssupect and set up a small roadblock. The suspect drove over a curb to evade the officer. At that point, the first officer turns on her lights and sirens. She still maintains a distance behind the suspect and followed him only close enough to keep him in her sight so she could alert other officers in the area. The suspect ran a stop sign and caused another motorist to take evasive action. The first officer stops at the same stop sign and even allows another officer to get in front of her. The cameras show both officers slowing for intersections and driving reasonably while the suspect got farther ahead. About five blocks in front of the officers, the suspect caused a collision, injuring the individuals in the other vehicle.
The individuals in the third car filed suit against the suspect, the officer, and the city. They argued the officer was negligent in continuing the pursuit and that her negligence resulted in the accident. The trial court denied the motion for summary judgment filed by the public defendants. The court concluded there was a question of fact as to whether the officer was responding to an emergency call under R.C. Chapter 2744 and whether the officer’s actions were reckless.
The Court of Appeals reversed. Explaining that recklessness is defined as a “perverse disregard of a known risk,” the Court concluded that reasonable minds could only conclude that the officer’s conduct did not rise to that level. Indeed, the officer displayed a great deal of caution and tempered her pursuit of the stolen vehicle to lessen the suspect’s motive to drive recklessly. She used lights and sirens and the cameras on her cruiser showed that she proceeded cautiously through intersections in consideration for the well-being of civilians. Thus, “no reasonable juror could find that she perversely disregarded the risk that the pursuit posed to other drivers.”
The plaintiffs argued that it was reckless for the officer not to immediately stop the pursuit when she observed the suspect driving erratically. Relying upon the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Scott v. Harris (2007), 550 U.S. 372, the court said, “[w]e find this argument unavailing. As we stated above, police officers do not have a duty to refrain from all pursuit. Additionally, if we accepted plaintiffs’ argument, we would reach a holding that would encourage suspects to drive recklessly so that police officers would be forced to stop any pursuit or face liability for harm caused by the suspects’ driving. We refuse to create such a perverse incentive for suspects.”
Source URL: http://www.swohiolaw.com/2012/01/10/police-officer-entitled-to-immunity-for-mva/
Copyright ©2012 Subashi & Wildermuth unless otherwise noted.