Liability for Car Accident After a Police Chase

Case Background

A member of the St. Leo Police Department, specifically Officer Speedy, was performing a patrol task in a squad car. A black speeding sports car nearly caused an accident with a police car and attempted to flee. When the violation was detected, there was a clear violation of speeding and vague steering. The incident happened around midnight, as evidenced by the officer’s testimony, witnesses, and relatives of the victims. At that time, many of the eating establishments had recently just stopped operating, and many people were on the streets.

The police department officer on duty decided to pursue the offender without management authorization and without a departmental policy on hot pursuit. Both vehicles traveled more than one hundred miles per hour, even though the action occurred on downtown streets. The police officer Speedy lost control at some point in the chase, and her car flew into a pedestrian area over the curb, taking a bystander’s life.

The sports car driver also soon lost control, which resulted in his car hitting a telephone pole. This collision triggered the driver’s death, and the cause of his distraction is cited as having happened to the car that was chasing him. However, given the suspect’s death in the speeding violation, this fact could not be verified due to the vehicle’s high speed. As the situation is being reviewed, the police department, the Sheriff, and the City of St. Leo face a lawsuit from the family of the pedestrian killed by the police car. In addition, representatives from the driver’s side of the sports car also plan to sue the Sheriff and the City of St. Leo.

Issues Presented

In the context of the investigation of this incident and the consideration of its consequences, several legal issues presented to the police department and the City become evident. They are all consequences of the situation, its results, and their correlation. Thus, it is possible to identify four leading issues that need to be prioritized and prioritize them in an order appropriate to the enumeration of the facts:

1. The first issue is determining whether the claims of the pedestrian’s family struck down by the police are legitimate in the context of the wrongful, though unspecial, deprivation of life.
2. Determining the legality of filing a claim for a similar cause of action related to the loss of life from the relatives of the deceased sports car driver.
3. How damaging the lack of hot pursuit policy of this police department is in the context of the above two court cases.
4. The determination of officer Speedy’s guilt and the degree of punishment if proven.

Arguments Presented by Each Side

The five main parties present their interests and have separate arguments in this situation. In the same order of enumeration, they include the pedestrian’s family, the family of the sports car driver, the Sheriff’s department, officer Speedy herself, and the general public consisting of citizens of the state. Accordingly, each side has its arguments and its own best case.

The family of the struck pedestrian may argue that the actions of the police officer were negligent, reckless, and unprofessional. They can point to the officer’s speeding at her location in a city full of people and the inconsistency with the hot pursuit policy. In addition, this party will likely present reckless driving as the primary cause of their relative’s death. The best case for the party is to win a trial, compensation, and an admission of officer Speedy’s guilt.

The representatives of the sports car driver’s side can focus on arguing that it was the fact of the harassment that caused the death of their loved one. In their version, this pursuit created a dangerous situation that provoked a loss of control and a collision with a telephone pole. Their charges against the police department may include failure to comply with the policy regarding officer-involved chase situations. The best case, in this case, is also winning a trial, compensation, and an admission of guilt by officer Speedy.

The police department’s arguments may include several main points. First, Officer Speedy acted within the scope of her duties and had the authority to pursue the offender in a black sports car. Second, the officer’s actions were intended to do her duty and protect the public by attempting to neutralize the dangerous driver. Third, the officer’s actions could be considered reasonable even without a hot pursuit policy. Fourth, the department may argue that the officer used her skills and professional knowledge in the attempted pursuit.

Finally, the department can point out to all parties that Officer Speedy’s actions, while tragic, were not directly related to any of the deaths. The attempt to flee the scene, namely creating a dangerous situation and speeding, ultimately resulted in the suspect’s death through his negligence. The best case would be to win the case and not suffer much damage to reputation.

Officer Speedy herself can argue that she followed and met the department’s standards. Attempting to pursue to stop a dangerous driver was the only option because of suspected alcohol or drug intoxication in the driver of the sports car. The pedestrian incident in these arguments is an unfortunate accident of losing control. The best case would be a dismissal of the charges and an affirmation of the lawfulness of the action.

The general public in this context may call attention to officer Speedy’s violation of public safety. The lack of a hot pursuit policy will be blamed on the police department, which is responsible for enforcing it. There may be an urgent need to develop such a policy to ensure the safety of the public and officers. Undoubtedly, the resulting increase in safety after a fair investigation is the best case for the public.

Applicable Law

In analyzing the claims that may be asserted in a lawsuit against the Police Department and the City of St. Leo, judicial precedent and applicable law must be considered. Accordingly, it is necessary to parse each potential claim separately and consider the conditions affecting the decision.

1. Two injured parties may bring a wrongful death claim. Such a claim is civil and involves the recovery of damages from the party who caused the intentional or unintentional injury and caused the death. The elements of such an action are similar to those of a negligence action, which will be considered next. However, the causation and level of compensation are additionally evaluated. In the pedestrian case, the relatives must prove the officer’s misconduct to prove his guilt.
2. An allegation of police officer negligence is expressed by the relatives of the deceased pedestrian suing for negligence in complying with her duties. In this case, the plaintiff must turn their attention to the observance of care and prove that this duty was breached, resulting in the plaintiff suffering damages. It involves the officer’s concern for the area’s entire population being patrolled. Exceeding the speed limit on a downtown pursuit may be the main argument in this case. In doing so, the officer could be charged with losing control of the vehicle and hitting the sidewalk.
3. Moreover, considered are civil rights claims that both injured parties can file. This claim involves finding the officer’s motivation in the format of discrimination or animus and is relevant to 42 USC. The law implicates civil remedies for persons whose constitutional rights have been violated, including under the guise of law. For this particular paragraph to be considered, it must be shown that officer Speedy’s discrimination dislike of the sports car driver resulted in the deprivation of two people’s rights to life and liberty.
4. When representatives of a deceased traffic suspect accuse the officer of the death of his relative, the primary focus may be on misconduct. This situation is adversely affected by the lack of an approved departmental traffic policy. However, if traces of alcohol or drug intoxication are found in the deceased, his guilt in the accident will be confirmed. Moreover, the alleged distraction from the accident behind cannot be confirmed because the driver was alone in the car.

Recommendation

Based upon the tested applicable law and existing precedents under federal and Florida law, several recommendations can be made for the Sheriff in the current situation. However, it should be noted that if additional factors are identified during the investigation, they may be reviewed and adjusted. Currently, the information is based solely on available facts and does not include the blood tests of the deceased driver or the officer’s proven bias.

1. The Sheriff, represented by a representative of the police department, and the City of St. Leo must assume responsibility for the officer’s actions as a member of a governmental entity. Accordingly, a settlement in the form of compensation and an apology should be offered to the families of both victims of the incident.
2. The St. Leo Police Department should promptly develop and submit for approval a hot pursuit policy that must meet all necessary standards and guarantee the actions of any police officer in a similar situation.
3. Officer Speedy should be held accountable for his or her reckless actions, including suspension and retraining. Dismissal in the current situation does not appear necessary because, according to the initial findings, she was trying to accomplish her duty. However, recklessness and recklessness should be punished sufficiently to preclude recidivism.

Thus, by assuming responsibility, government agencies must do their job and help resolve the situation. The result of such an outcome should be increased safety and satisfied members of the public. In addition, it should be made clear to the public that all law enforcement officers are required to follow the procedures and rules of their department.

Reasons

In the context of the incident, the pedestrian’s family has a strong case against the police department and city officials. The officer’s conduct was reckless and dangerous enough to cause her to lose control. However, because she was acting within the scope of her duty, the responsibility for what happened and the lack of correct policy must lie with the police department. This responsibility rests on the principles of negligence. Florida Statutes establishes the standards and concepts of this concept, as evidenced in Frazier v. Delta Air Lines, and expressed in the basic elements of duty, damages, cause, and effect.

As to the Sheriff’s fault in the death of the sports car driver, one must focus on the principles of proximate cause in this case. Police officials may argue that they were not the cause of the driver’s death, as supported by case law. For example, proximate cause is a legal concept that limits liability to damages caused solely by the defendant’s direct actions. Moreover, contingent interference cannot give rise to liability if a causal connection between the defendant’s conduct and the injury is not established.

Nevertheless, the police department’s liability for the lack of hot pursuit policy can be construed as a municipal concept. Thus, the Sheriff’s department may be held liable if it is proven that the lack of such a policy was the primary cause of the pedestrian’s death. It is explained by case law that if a municipality becomes the cause of a violation of the constitutional rights of citizens. However, such policies and their adoption wholly depend on municipal decision-making and must be implemented and developed by the City.

Core Values

St. Leo’s many core values must be upheld and central to the full review process of the incident. Among these are honesty, community, and mutual respect, which must be reflected in the parties’ arguments, recommendations, and final decisions of the appropriate authorities. The high-speed chase by the police in this context affected a violation of the value of respect for the public’s welfare and safety. Management’s responsibility for the actions of the officer Speedy in doing so relates to the values of community and honesty, as taking such responsibility for officers and ensuring the protection of the public is their primary concern.

When considering St. Leo’s values, attention must be paid to the officer’s discipline, including respect for citizens and the entire community. This respect must be reinforced by the presence of accountability of the law enforcement agencies and their officers for their actions. Without this condition, it is impossible to maintain a level of trust and community. Furthermore, adherence to all departmental rules, procedures, and policies is essential to achieving public safety.

References

Cheng, T. (2021). Social media, socialization, and pursuing legitimation of police violence. Criminology; an Interdisciplinary Journal, 59(3), 391–418. Web.

Christie, N. (2020). Managing the safety of police pursuits: A mixed method case study of the Metropolitan Police Service, London. Safety Science, 129(1). Web.

Langham, J. C. (2019). The need for restrictive pursuit policies. Web.

Ralph, K., & Girardeau, I. (2020). Distracted by “distracted pedestrians”? Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives, 5(1). Web.

Scott, A. J., III. (2021). Should initiation of police vehicle pursuits be based on the objectively reasonable calculus? (Doctor of Criminal Justice Dissertation) [Saint Leo University, Florida]. Web.