Wrubel v. State

• Decision Date: 02 June 1958
• Citation: 174 N.Y.S.2d 687,11 Misc.2d 878
• Parties: Alice WRUBEL, Claimant, v. The STATE of New York. Henry M. WRUBEL, Claimant, v. The STATE of New York.
• Court: New York Court of Claims

Page 687

174 N.Y.S.2d 687

11 Misc.2d 878

Alice WRUBEL, Claimant, v. The STATE of New York.

Henry M. WRUBEL, Claimant, v. The STATE of New York.

Court of Claims of New York.

June 2, 1958.

Lockwood & Vaughan, Utica, Bert B. Lockwood, Utica, of counsel, for claimants.

Louis J. Lefkowitz, Atty. Gen., David C. Quinn, Asst. Atty. Gen., of counsel, for the State.

FRED A. YOUNG, Judge.

About midnight on the night of June 27, 1953, New York State Trooper Anthony Marchione, while patrolling Route 5, saw a 1941 Buick speeding by at an estimated seventy miles per hour. With siren blowing and red lights flashing, the trooper gave chase. On five occasions he was able to pull abreast of the Buick to signal him over but each time the operator of the Buick swerved his car to the left to force the troop car back or off the road.

Followed in close pursuit by the trooper's car, the Buick went around a curve, traveled an additional 350 feet to a point opposite pole No. 136, and collided with a car being operated in the opposite direction by claimant, Henry M. Wrubel. His wife, Alice, was a passenger and both suffered damages for which suit is brought.

After the collision, the trooper heard someone running in the bushes. He gave chase and apprehended one William Coon, who was the operator of the Buick. The trooper returned to his car to call headquarters. He then was alerted to be on the 'lookout' for a stolen Buick car which was headed in his patrol area. The trooper then learned that the Buick he had been pursuing was the stolen Buick. He later learned that said William Coon was a paroled felon.

Distilled to its essence, the case presents one question--Is the State liable for the damage occasioned by a fleeing lawbreaker while being pursued by a state trooper who was performing his duty?

We do not believe so under the circumstances here.

In the presence of a violation of law it is the officer's duty to take steps to suppress the offense and apprehend the offender. At its inception the offense being committed was only a traffic infraction. However, it developed, in the opinion of the Court, into reckless driving, a misdemeanor, also into resisting an officer, and other crimes which could be made out of the incident as it developed.

Claimants' predication of liability on the State is founded on the novel position that the trooper, in attempting to halt one increasing the danger on the highway, did by his attempt alone increase the danger himself. To extend this position to the ultimate would require a police officer to pursue, at an otherwise lawful rate of speed, a lawbreaker traveling at an unlawful rate of speed, or to ignore him in the first place.

An operator who is speeding, or who is a reckless driver on the highway, would know that all he had to do was to go faster--and under claimants' theory escape would be possible--there would be no chase. A burglar, bank robber or any other felon could threaten to shoot and under claimants' theory escape would be possible and arrest avoided. It is fantastic to further expand claimants' theory--such thinking would place a police officer in the same category as the Marquis of Queensbury in...