Roddel v. Town of Flora

• Decision Date: 21 October 1991
• Docket Number: No. 12A02-8907-CV-337,12A02-8907-CV-337
• Citation: 580 N.E.2d 255
• Parties: Troy G. RODDEL, Appellant (Plaintiff), v. TOWN OF FLORA, et al., Appellees (Defendants).
• Court: Indiana Appellate Court

Page 255

580 N.E.2d 255

Troy G. RODDEL, Appellant (Plaintiff), v. TOWN OF FLORA, et al., Appellees (Defendants).

No. 12A02-8907-CV-337.

Court of Appeals of Indiana Second District.

Oct. 21, 1991.

Caroline B. Briggs, Florence Anne Briggs, Flora, for appellant.

G. Ronald Heath, Johnson Smith Densborn Wright & Heath, Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen., Arthur M. Small, Deputy Atty. Gen., William C. Moore, Steckbeck & Moore, Indianapolis, for appellees.

BUCHANAN, Judge.

CASE SUMMARY

Plaintiff-appellant Troy Roddel (Roddel) appeals from the dismissal of his complaint against the defendants-appellees Town of Flora, Indiana (Town), et al., claiming that his complaint stated grounds upon which relief could be granted.

We affirm.

FACTS

The facts most favorable to the trial court's judgment reveal that on August 10, 1984, shortly before midnight Roddel, a local resident, was driving in Flora Park, a park in the Town of Flora. As Roddel left the park, he was pursued by a deputy town marshal. Roddel refused to stop and a high speed chase ensued. Speeds during the chase reached 95 miles per hour. The deputy marshal was assisted by several Carroll County deputy sheriffs, who formed a roadblock in Roddel's path. To avoid colliding with the roadblock, Roddel left the road and attempted to stop his vehicle. His vehicle collided with a tree, and his left leg was severed in the accident. After the accident, one of the officers handcuffed Roddel to the steering wheel of his vehicle.

On August 8, 1986, Roddel filed suit in the trial court. Roddel sought relief under various theories, including a claim under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 ¹ for violation of his constitutional rights, a personal injury claim for damages on the theory of general tort liability, and a contention that several Indiana statutes were unconstitutional. Roddel included On January 20, 1988, the trial court granted the State's motion for judgment on the pleadings and declared the challenged Indiana statutes constitutional. The trial court also granted the sureties' motions to dismiss as to them, and the trial court dismissed the remainder of the complaint for failing to comply with Ind.Rules of Procedure, Trial Rules 8(A) and (E). Roddel filed an amended complaint on February 1, 1988, which the trial court dismissed on September 30, 1988 for failing to state a claim for relief under Trial Rule 12(B)(6). Roddel filed a second amended complaint on November 7, 1988, which was dismissed by the trial court on February 9, 1989. On March 10, 1989, the trial court entered judgment in favor of the Town, the County, the Town Marshal, the Sheriff, and the deputy sheriffs and marshal.

as parties the Town, the Town Board, the Town Marshal and deputy marshal, Carroll County (the County), the County Commissioners, the Sheriff, the various deputy sheriffs involved in the roadblock, the sureties of the Town Marshal and the Sheriff (hereinafter collectively referred to as the defendants), and the State of Indiana.

ISSUES

1. Whether the trial court properly dismissed Roddel's Sec. 1983 action?

2. Whether the trial court properly dismissed Roddel's personal injury claim?

3. Whether the trial court properly concluded certain Indiana statutes were constitutional? ²

DECISION

ISSUE ONE--Did the trial court properly dismiss Roddel's Sec. 1983 action?

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS--Roddel argues that his complaints sufficiently articulated a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983, and that the trial court should not have dismissed it. The defendants respond that the facts alleged in Roddel's complaint are insufficient to support his cause of action.

CONCLUSION--The trial court properly dismissed Roddel's Sec. 1983 complaint.

It is not often in the life of an appellate judge, having no Indiana case on point, that a beacon light appears in the form of a recent United States Supreme Court case. Such a case is Brower v. County of Inyo (1989), 489 U.S. 593, 109 S.Ct. 1378, 103 L.Ed.2d 628, in which a similar claim was sought in a similar procedural context. Roddel's complaint alleged that the deputy marshal and sheriffs unreasonably seized him by using a roadblock to impede his flight. Roddel also alleged that the Town and County were liable for failing to adequately train their employees to prevent a deprivation of his constitutional rights. ³

But in Brower, the United States Supreme Court had before it a Sec. 1983 claim that alleged the defendants had used brutal, excessive, unreasonable and unnecessary physical force in establishing a roadblock, and had therefore effected an unreasonable seizure of Brower, in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The plaintiff, the heirs of Brower, alleged that the defendants had placed an 18-wheel tractor-trailer across both lanes of a two-lane highway in Brower's path; that the defendants had concealed the roadblock by placing it, unilluminated, behind a curve; that they had positioned a police car, with its headlights on, in such a manner as to blind Brower when he approached the roadblock; and that Brower had died when he struck the roadblock. The trial court dismissed the complaint for failing to state a claim for relief.

The Court accepted the plaintiff's characterization of the use of a roadblock as a "seizure," and analyzed the plaintiff's claim that it was "unreasonable." Justice Scalia, writing the Court's majority opinion, concluded:

"This is not to say that the precise character of the roadblock is irrelevant to further issues in this case. 'Seizure' alone is not enough for Sec. 1983 liability; the seizure must also be 'unreasonable.' Petitioners can claim the right to recover for Brower's death only because the unreasonableness they allege consists precisely of setting up the roadblock in such a manner as to be likely to kill him. This should be contrasted with the situation that would obtain if the sole claim of unreasonableness were that there was no probable cause for the stop. In that case, if Brower had had the opportunity to stop voluntarily at the roadblock, but had negligently or intentionally driven into it, then, because of lack of proximate causality, respondents, though responsible for depriving him of his freedom of movement, would not be liable for his death. See Martinez v. California, 444 U.S. 277, 285, 100 S.Ct. 553, 559, 62 L.Ed.2d 481 (1980); Cameron v. Pontiac, 813 F.2d 782, 786 (CA6 1987). Thus, the circumstances of this roadblock, including the allegation that headlights were used to blind the oncoming driver, may yet determine the outcome of this case."

Brower, supra, 489 U.S. at 599, 109 S.Ct. at 1382-83 (emphasis supplied). The Court went on to reverse the trial court's dismissal and concluded that the plaintiffs had stated a claim under Sec. 1983.

We are of the opinion that the Supreme Court's decision in Brower mandates the dismissal of Roddel's Sec. 1983 claim. Unlike the plaintiff in Brower, Roddel did not allege that the roadblock was unreasonable because it was designed to kill him or cause him serious bodily injury. Rather, Roddel alleged the roadblock was unreasonable because the chase was unnecessary and unjustified. This allegation falls squarely within the type of allegation that Justice Scalia said would not state an actionable claim under Sec. 1983. See also Cameron v. Pontiac (6th Cir., 1987) 813 F.2d 782. (State not liable for death of fleeing defendant when defendant ran onto highway and was killed by a truck; alleged unreasonable seizure was not proximate cause of defendant's death).

Roddel's position is not persuasive. He claims that any roadblock used to stop him would constitute an unreasonable seizure because there was no reason for the stop. But the Supreme Court's opinion clearly contemplates that only roadblocks designed to cause death or serious bodily injury are sufficiently "unreasonable" to invoke Sec. 1983 liability. Thus Roddel's sole claim of "unreasonableness" generating Sec. 1983 liability was explicitly rejected by the Supreme Court in Brower. There exists no set of facts or circumstances under the theory of liability advanced by Roddel which would entitle him to relief.

Because the facts alleged in Roddel's complaint were insufficient, as a matter of law, to impose liability under Sec. 1983, we must conclude the trial court properly dismissed Roddel's complaint as to this claim. Similarly, as Roddel did not sufficiently allege a deprivation of his constitutional rights, his claim against the Town and the County for failing to train the deputy marshal and sheriffs was also properly dismissed. See City of Oklahoma City v. Tuttle (1985), 471 U.S. 808, 817 n. 4, 105 S.Ct. 2427, 2432-33 n. 4, 85 L.Ed.2d 791. (Federal right must be violated to establish liability under Sec. 1983).

ISSUE TWO--Did the trial court properly dismiss Roddel's state tort claim?

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS--Roddel asserts that his complaint, which alleged the defendants had breached a duty to him, resulting in his injuries, sufficiently alleged a claim for damages under state tort law. The defendants reply that they are immune from liability.

CONCLUSION--The trial court correctly dismissed Roddel's personal injury claim.

There is a statute controlling conduct by government entities and employees. Ind.Code 34-4-16.5-3 (1988) provides, in pertinent part:

"A governmental entity or an employee acting within the scope of his employment is not liable if a loss results from:

. . . . .

(7) the adoption and enforcement of or failure to adopt or enforce a law (including rules and regulations), unless the act of enforcement constitutes false arrest or false imprisonment;...."

The defendants see this provision as a shield from liability for Roddel's injuries. Roddel says his complaint alleged he was subject to false arrest or imprisonment, and therefore there is a question of fact as to whether the defendants were immune under this statute. A review of Roddel's complaint, however,...