In the case of Gates v. Leonbruno, 2016-Ohio-5627, an Ohio appellate court found that “no reasonable factfinder could find that, in following [an accelerating vehicle, the police officer] acted wantonly, i.e., that he failed to exercise any care toward those to whom a duty of care is owed under circumstances in which there is great probability that harm will result, or recklessly, i.e., with conscious disregard of or indifference to a known or obvious risk of harm to another that is unreasonable under the circumstances.” Gates at ¶ 42.
The pursuit began when the police officer clocked a high-performance vehicle traveling 15 miles over the posted speed limit. While the officer followed the vehicle onto an exit ramp intending to make a traffic stop, the vehicle accelerated rapidly on the freeway reaching speeds exceeding 100 m.p.h. The officer followed but never came within 800 feet of the vehicle. The pursuit ended when the driver lost control of the vehicle while exiting the freeway and struck a tree causing serious injuries. “The pursuit lasted 110 seconds from the time [the officer] activated his sirens until the [vehicle] crashed.” Gates at ¶ 15.
The issue in this case was whether the officer acted in a wanton or reckless manner, which would be an exception to the officer’s immunity under R.C. 2744.03(A)(6)(b), in pursuing the vehicle. Plaintiffs presented expert testimony and internal policies demonstrating that, in modern policing, high speed vehicular pursuits are prohibited for traffic infractions.
In spite of the plaintiff’s expert testimony, the appellate court declined to adopt a per se rule that an officer’s failure to terminate a pursuit once a vehicle accelerates or reaches a certain rate of speed is, in and of itself, wanton or reckless conduct. According to the court, such a rule “would create an incentive for lawless drivers to simply increase their speed [* * *] to avoid apprehension, at considerable risk to the public.” Gates at ¶ 46. Rather, “some reasonable period of time must be allowed for the officer to attempt to make the traffic stop and for that attempted traffic stop to fail before the officer could be reasonably deemed to be engaging in a ‘vehicular pursuit’ by continuing to follow the suspect’s vehicle.” Gates at ¶ 48.
To read this case, please click here.
Authors: Matthew John Markling and Patrick Vrobel
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.