Stanley v. City of Independence, Missouri, 81235
| Decision Date | 29 June 1999 |
| Docket Number | 81235 |
| Citation | 995 S.W.2d 485 |
| Parties | This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court. Jerry Stanley and Justin Stanley, Appellants, v. City of Independence, Missouri, et al., Respondents. Case Number: 81235 Supreme Court of Missouri Handdown Date: 0 |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal From: Circuit Court of Jackson County, Hon. C. William Kramer
Counsel for Appellant: Julie J. Gibson and Michael D. Matteuzzi
Counsel for Respondent: David S. Baker
Opinion Summary:
An Independence police officer initiated a traffic stop of a van fitting the description of the vehicle used in an armed robbery 30 minutes earlier. The van fled and about 45 seconds later, although the officer had reduced his pursuit, hit and killed Michael and Daniel Stanley. Plaintiffs sued the city of Independence and the officer for wrongful death. The court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment. Plaintiffs appeal only as to the city.
AFFIRMED.
Court en banc holds:
In order to recover against the city, plaintiffs must have suffered damages attributable to the officer's negligence. To recover damages, a defendant's negligence must be the proximate cause of plaintiff's injury. The General Assembly has waived sovereign immunity for injuries "directly resulting" from public employees' negligence in operating motor vehicles in their employment.
The officer's conduct was not a proximate cause of the collision. Any negligence by the officer is connected to plaintiffs' injury solely through the conduct of the fleeing van. Thus, the only conceivable causal link between the officer's alleged negligence and the collision is the conjectural effect of his pursuit on the vehicle. There is no way to tell whether the collision would have been avoided if the officer had abandoned the pursuit after initiating it. Thus, there is no factual basis to support a finding of proximate cause. Because causation is absent, plaintiffs failed to make a submissible case against Independence.
Opinion Vote: AFFIRMED. All concur.
Plaintiffs sued the city of Independence and police officer Leonard Hill for the wrongful death of Michael and Daniel Stanley. The circuit court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment. Plaintiffs appeal only as to the city. After opinion by the court of appeals, this Court granted transfer. Mo. Const. art. V, sec. 10. Affirmed. This Court reviews the record in the light most favorable to the party against whom summary judgment was entered. ITT Commercial Fin. Corp. v. Mid-Am. Marine Supply Corp., 854 S.W.2d 371, 376 (Mo. banc 1993). Review is essentially de novo, as the propriety of summary judgment is an issue of law. Id. Summary judgment is proper when no genuine issue of material fact exists and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fisher v. State Highway Com'n of Mo., 948 S.W.2d 607, 611 (Mo. banc 1997).
At approximately 5:30 p.m. on Tuesday, July 26, 1994, Officer Hill of the Independence Police Department was driving his marked patrol car on Highway 40, near Blue Ridge Mall. He saw a white Chevy van with out-of-state license plates. It matched the description of the vehicle used in an armed robbery 30 minutes earlier. Officer Hill pulled behind the van, while it was stopped at a stoplight on Sterling Road. Out of concern for public safety, he did not initiate a traffic stop until the light changed and the van cleared the intersection. Officer Hill then turned on his emergency lights and gave a "quick yelp" on his police siren. The van fled. Officer Hill activated his siren and pursued.
The van turned across traffic into a parking lot, attempting to shake officer Hill. It circled the parking lot, crossed Highway 40 onto 39th Street, and continued through a residential neighborhood. Both vehicles were then heading east, with officer Hill one car length behind. The van ran a red stoplight at 39th and Sterling, traveling at about 55 miles per hour. Officer Hill backed off slightly, crossing the intersection two car lengths behind.
As the vehicles neared 39th and Blue Ridge, traffic was stopped at the stoplight in their lane of travel. The van moved into the westbound, oncoming lane of traffic at about 70 miles per hour. Officer Hill, backing off further, also moved into the oncoming lane of traffic about ten car lengths behind.
The decedents, Michael and Daniel Stanley, were approaching 39th and Blue Ridge in the proper lane, heading west. The fleeing van -- still in the wrong lane of traffic -- crossed the intersection and hit the decedents, as they tried to pull out of the way. At the moment of impact, officer Hill was about 191 feet behind the van.
45 seconds passed from the initial flight of the van until the collision. Throughout the chase, officer Hill's emergency lights and siren were activated, and he remained in contact with the dispatcher.
By statute, police officers may disregard traffic regulations in certain situations:
(2) The driver of an emergency vehicle may: (a) Park or stand irrespective of the provisions of sections 304.014 to 304.026;
(b) Proceed past a red or stop signal or stop sign, but only after slowing down as may be necessary for safe operation;
(c) Exceed the prima facie speed limit so long as he does not endanger life or property;
(d) Disregard regulations governing direction of movement or turning in specified directions;(3) The exemptions herein granted to an emergency vehicle shall apply only when the driver of any such vehicle while in motion sounds audible signal ... and when the vehicle is equipped with at least one lighted lamp ....
Section 304.022.4(2), (3).1 See also section 544.157.4. At the time of the accident, the Independence Police Department had in effect the following policy:
DEPARTMENTAL GENERAL ORDER 80-64
CAR CHASES
2-1. It is the policy of this department that the responsibility of life and property lies with each individual officer and it is at his discretion to decide when a car chase will terminate. The officer's decision must be based on the safety and protection of all persons. The department expects any officer to terminate his involvement in pursuit whenever the risks outweigh the danger to the community if the suspect is not apprehended.
2-2. The police officer must consider:
a. The seriousness of the crime involved;
b. The possibility of apprehension;
c. The location the pursuit will occur in -- residential, business district, freeway, etc.; d. Traffic conditions;
e. Weather conditions;
f. Condition of police vehicle;
g. Road conditions;
Before exercising discretion.
Plaintiffs allege that officer Hill acted negligently -- including violating section 304.022.4(2) and Order 80-64 -- by initiating, continuing, and failing to terminate the chase that ended with the decedents' deaths. Specifically, plaintiffs claim that the officer's decision to initiate and continue the high-speed chase was negligent because the pursuit occurred during rush hour and in a residential neighborhood. They assert that his employer, the city of Independence, is liable under respondeat superior.
Under respondeat superior, an employer is liable for damages from the misconduct of its employee acting within the course and scope of employment. McHaffie v. Bunch, 891 S.W.2d 822, 825 (Mo. banc 1995). Therefore, in order to recover against the city, plaintiffs must have suffered damages attributable to officer Hill's negligence. See id. To sue for negligence, a plaintiff must prove: (1) the defendant owed a duty to the plaintiff, (2) the defendant breached that duty, and (3) the defendant's breach was a proximate cause of the plaintiff's injury. Martin v. City of Washington, 848 S.W.2d 487, 493 (Mo. banc 1993).
In Oberkramer v. City of Ellisville, 706 S.W.2d 440 (Mo. banc 1986), this Court addressed the responsibility of a pursuing police officer for collisions between the pursued vehicle and a third party. It is not clear whether plaintiffs in Oberkramer alleged negligence by pursuing police officers. Compare 706 S.W.2d at 441 (), with 706 S.W.2d at 442 (). In the present case, plaintiffs have specifically alleged that officer Hill was negligent.
To recover damages, however, a defendant's negligence must be the proximate cause of the plaintiff's injury. King v. Ellis, 359...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Green v. State
- Montgomery v. Saleh
- Sellers v. Twp. of Abington
- Montgomery v. Patrick R. Saleh & State