The top court in Maryland has ruled that state common law precludes a police officer from suing the state after a dispatcher provided wrong information about an incident, leading to the officer’s serious injuries from a car accident while responding. The Court of Appeals cited the state’s “Fireman’s Rule,” which covers suing those “whose negligence necessitated the public safety officers’ presence at the location where the injury occurred.” The rule has been adopted by 25 other states, the court noted, and covers this case, in which a state police dispatcher failed to ask sufficient questions of a 911 caller in 2002, and dispatched Thurmont town police officer Richard White to an “armed robbery” when, in fact, it was a shoplift theft from a hardware store. White located the vehicle and gave chase, but crashed while rounding a curve, and he was seriously injured.
In this case, an Ace Hardware employee dialed 911 in Oct. 2002 and the call was routed to the state police barrack in Frederick, where dispatcher William Henrickson answered it. On a logging tape played at court, the employee said, “I just got shafted. A guy just robbed it.” Henrickson failed to ask more specific questions, including if the suspect was armed.
Henrickson dispatched Off. White, radioing him, “An armed robbery just occurred…” He described the getaway vehicle as a red Nissan heading toward Route 15.
When White spotted the vehicle, he gave chase, and was joined by other officers. Nine minutes into the chase White fishtailed on a curve, struck a tree and suffered serious injuries. Now he does not remember anything before or after the accident.
It turned out the incident was actually a shoplift theft, and White sued the state of Maryland for Henrickson’s negligence.
A lower court allowed the lawsuit to proceed despite the Firemen’s Rule immunity raised by the state. During the trial Henrickson testified that asking about weapons was a “cardinal rule” of calltaking, and that a shoplift would have been a lower-priority response. At the close of testimony, the court granted the state’s request for a dismissal on the basis of the Firemen’s Rule, and White appealed.
The Court of Special Appeals agreed with the lower court, noting the Firemen’s Rule, which “recognizes the relationship between public safety officers, who have assumed certain occupational risks, and the public, whom those officers serve and protect.”
White appealed again. Now the state’s highest court, the Court of Appeal, also agreed with the lower court. The Firemen’s Rule dates to 1925, the court noted their previous crafting of the immunity policy:
[A]s a matter of public policy, firemen and police officers generally cannot recover for injuries attributable to the negligence that requires their assistance. This public policy is based on a relationship between firemen and policemen and the public that calls on these safety officers specifically to confront certain hazards on behalf of the public. A fireman or police officer may not recover if injured by the negligently created risk that was the very reason for his presence on the scene in his occupational capacity. Someone who negligently creates the need for a public safety officer will not be liable to a fireman or policeman for injuries caused by this negligence.
White’s attorney and the state presented arguments both that Henrickson’s negligent dispatch was not a reasonably foreseeable occupational risk, and that White should have foreseen the risk of pursuing a vehicle at high speeds. The court agreed with the state, and along with other reasons ruled that Maryland was not liable.
Download (pdf) the full court decision here.
0 comments… add one
You must log in to post a comment. Log in now.