Judgment Day

On June 12th, the New York Court of Appeals decided Tutrani v. County of Suffolk, and held police officers are partially liable when their actions create a foreseeable danger, at least on the roadways.

This case reminded me of a post I read a couple of months back about Seattle attorney Eric Bryant filing a complaint against a police officer for illegally parking his patrol vehicle while waiting for his food. Here’s a portion of the post by Scott at Simple Justice:

Eric Bryant said he was sitting at the restaurant March 7 when Officer Chad Stensgaard parked his patrol car next to a no-parking sign and walked inside to wait for his food, the Portland Mercury reported Thursday.

Bryant told the weekly paper that when he asked Stensgaard about his car, the officer asked Bryant, "If someone broke into your house, would you rather have the police be able to park in front of your house or have to park three blocks away and walk there?"

Bryant filed a complaint as a private citizen alleging several violations, including illegal parking and illegal operation of an emergency vehicle.

In fairness, there are some good reasons why police engage in what appears to be unlawful conduct. If Stensgaard has gotten an emergency call while waiting for his food, requiring his immediate response, it makes sense that his car was right in front of the restaurant.

Similarly, police often respond to lower grade calls at a high rate of speed, and going through traffic lights, under circumstances that don't require full lights and sirens since they aren't in pursuit. The problem is that these aren't always the case, and almost every driver is aware of cops who do it just because they can.

Scott is right on.  Living outside of NYC, I often see cops pull up to a red light, pause for a few seconds, take a look around, and then go before the light turns green. I know cops who say they do this most of the time, even when they’re not responding to a call.  Why?  The usual answer is "why not?"  But if there is no call to respond to, and an officer is simply on patrol, why shouldn’t he or she follow the traffic laws like the rest of us? Tutrani suggests they should (at least in some instances). 

Defendant Lee Weidl, a Suffolk County police officer, was driving his marked police vehicle on the service road of the Long Island Expressway during morning rush-hour traffic.

According to the testimony, while traveling in the middle lane of the three-lane highway, he abruptly decelerated from approximately 40 miles per hour to 1 or 2 miles per hour while changing lanes. Plaintiff, traveling immediately behind the officer, slammed on her brakes and was able to stop within 'a half a car length' of Officer Weidl’s vehicle without striking it. Seconds later, plaintiff’s vehicle was rear-ended by a vehicle driven by defendant Darlene Maldonado.

A jury found that Officer Weidl’s reckless conduct and Maldonado’s negligence were each a substantial factor in causing plaintiff’s injuries and apportioned fault at 50% each. The Appellate Division reversed the judgment entered upon the jury’s verdict, holding, as a matter of law, that Officer Weidl’s conduct was not a proximate cause of the accident because 'plaintiff was able to come to a complete stop without hitting Officer Weidl's vehicle'.

The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s ruling:

[I]n light of the fact that the accident occurred within seconds of Officer Weidl's abrupt deceleration, [Weidl’s] actions were not so ‘remote in time’ from plaintiff's injury as to preclude recovery as a matter of law. Under these circumstances, it is irrelevant that plaintiff was able to stop her vehicle without striking Officer Weidl’s vehicle.

Clearly, Officer Weidl’s actions created a foreseeable danger that vehicles would have to brake aggressively in an effort to avoid the lane obstruction created by his vehicle, thereby increasing the risk of rear-end collisions. That a negligent driver may be unable to stop his or her vehicle in time to avoid a collision with a stopped vehicle is 'a normal or foreseeable consequence of the situation created by' Officer Weidl’s actions.