State Court Overturns Dispatcher Verdict

The Connecticut Supreme Court has reversed a $12 million verdict against the town of Clinton, saying one of its dispatchers didn’t realize a 911 caller was pursuing a hit-and-run suspect at high speeds, and so was not liable under state law when the suspect struck a tree and was seriously injured. The conservator of Walker Hopkins sued the city in 2005, claiming that dispatcher Ellen Vece should have instructed the 911 caller to stop chasing Hopkins, who had struck the caller’s vehicle, causing some damage. The plaintiff said Vece should have foreseen the potential danger in allowing the 911 caller to continue following the suspect vehicle. If true, the town would be liable under the “identifiable person–imminent harm” exception in the state’s governmental immunity law. A local court agreed with the conservator’s claims and awarded her substantial damages for Hopkins’ continuing care. However, the Supreme Court disagreed that Vece could have foreseen the danger, and reversed the lower court’s decision.

In general, the court said the 911 caller was calm and collected, never mentioned his speed (50 mph in a 25 mph zone), and did not mention that he was displaying a flashing blue light authorized by his volunteer firefighter status. Within four minutes the vehicle crashed, rolled and caught on fire. The caller did provide a good description of the suspect vehicle and the license plate.

A key element of the court’s decision was that the law allows them to consider only what Vece knew at the time as obtained from the caller, not what she might have known had she asked additional questions of the caller. The court added that even Vece’s prior knowledge of the town’s geography or the road’s dangers were not pertinent to determining liability.

Based only on the telephone conversation, the court ruled that Vece could not have realized the imminent danger involved in the pursuit, and so the town was not liable for Hopkins injuries.

Download (pdf) the court’s full decision here (the footnotes are interesting).