In the case of Williams v. Shawnee Twp., 2023-Ohio-251, an appellate court held that a police officer did not act in a wanton or reckless manner when the police offer exercised care and followed department guidelines during a high-speed chase that caused an accident with the citizen’s car, and, therefore, neither the town’s statutory immunity nor the police officer’s statutory immunity were waived under R.C. 2744.02(B)(1)(a) and R.C. 2744.03(A)(6).
In this case, the citizen argued that (1) the town is liable for the town’s negligence in the hiring, training, and supervision of the police officer; (2) the police officer was not responding to an emergency call, as the police officer did not engage the vehicles sirens or overhead lights; and (3) the police officer’s conduct was wanton or reckless as the police officer failed to abandon the high-speed pursuit as there is a high probability of harm when a police officer drives at a high rate of speed through fields, backyards, and streets with no regard for seeped limits, stop signs, or stop lights. In response, the town and the police officer argued that (1) only the police officer’s conduct while operating a vehicle can waive the statutory immunity; (2) there is no requirement that a police officer use a vehicle’s siren or overhead lights during an emergency call; and (3) the officer adhered to department policy and procedures during the pursuit, the roads were dry, conditions were clear, there was very light traffic, much of the chase happened at lower speeds, the officer slowed down and checked for oncoming traffic before proceeding through an intersection, the police officer did not hit anything while traveling through the backyard, did not attempt to force the other vehicle off the road, and maintained a reasonable distance behind the other vehicle. The appellate court agreed with the town and the police officer.
In support of its decision in favor of the town and police officer, the appellate court explained that “R.C. 2744.02(B)(1)(a) makes plain that it is the driver’s conduct and culpability in operating a vehicle—not the political subdivision’s—that determines whether the political subdivision may be held liable under the statute.” 2023-Ohio-251 at ¶ 19. The appellate court next explained that R.C. 2744.02 does not mandate a police officer utilize sirens or overhead lights to be deemed responding to an emergency call. The appellate court went on to explain that the police officer did exercise care towards the citizen, enough to qualify for statutory immunity, and there was no evidence that the police officer disregarded any known or obvious risk of harm to the citizen.
To read this case, click here.
Authors: Matthew John Markling and the McGown & Markling Team.
Note: This blog entry does not constitute – nor does it contain – legal advice. Legal jurisprudence is like the always-changing Midwestern weather. As a result, this single blog entry cannot substitute for consultation with a McGown & Markling attorney. If legal advice is needed with respect to a specific factual situation, please feel free to contact a McGown & Markling attorney.