Case Title: RAY v. BROKEN ARROW POLICE DEPT.

Citation: 

Docket Number: 106051

State: oklahoma

Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

Date: 2010-07-06T00:00:00Z

Document:
RAY v. BROKEN ARROW POLICE DEPT.  RAY v. BROKEN ARROW POLICE DEPT. 2010 OK 57 Case Number: 106051 Decided: 07/06/2010 THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA Gregory Ray, Debora Ray, and E.R., a minor, Appellants, v. Broken Arrow Police Department, A. Mauch, City of Broken Arrow, Appellees, and V.P., a minor, and Paula Priebe, Defendants. CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS Division III ¶0 Family, injured when a vehicle which was being pursued by a police vehicle crashed into their home, brought this action against the pursuing officer, the police department, the city, the fleeing driver, who was a minor, and the minor's guardian. The trial court, Honorable Deborah C. Shallcross, granted summary judgment to the city based on an exemption from liability in the Governmental Tort Claims Act. CERTIORARI PREVIOUSLY GRANTED; OPINION OF COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS VACATED; TRIAL COURT REVERSED; CAUSE REMANDED. Eric W. Quandt, Darrel R. Paul, Tulsa, Oklahoma, for Appellants. Beth Ann Wilkening, R. Hayden Downie, Broken Arrow, Oklahoma, for Appellee, City of Broken Arrow. COLBERT, J. ¶1 Certiorari was previously granted to consider this matter with the original proceeding in State ex rel. Department of Public Safety v. Gurich, ¶2 This matter addresses the single dispositive issue raised on appeal; the applicability of the exemption from liability for "[a]cts or omissions done in conformance with then current recognized standards." Id. at § 155(29). This Court holds that the exemption does not apply to these facts and that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment on that ground. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶3 On October 29, 2005, V.P.'s grandmother called 911 emergency services to report that her fifteen-year-old granddaughter was driving her parents' Jeep Cherokee without permission and without a license, and was observed driving in Broken Arrow, Oklahoma. Later that day, officer Angela Mauch of the Broken Arrow Police Department recognized the vehicle as being stolen, performed a U-turn and began pursuit. While fleeing from the officer, V.P. drove into a residential area where she lost control of the vehicle and into a residence occupied by the Ray family (Plaintiffs) causing physical injury to Plaintiffs and damage to their property. ¶4 There is some dispute regarding the pursuit. According to the officer, she initially attempted to pull V.P.'s car over, stopped, and began to exit her police car, when V.P. began to flee again and the officer was forced to reinitiate the chase, which eventually ended in the crash into Plaintiffs' home. Witnesses to the chase claim that no such attempted stop by the officer took place. There is dispute also regarding whether the officer properly engaged her emergency lights and siren and at what point she did so during the chase. ¶5 Plaintiffs brought this action against the officer, the Broken Arrow Police Department, the City of Broken Arrow (City) asserting that the officer was negligent in pursuing V.P. and that City was vicariously liable for the officer's acts performed within the scope of her employment with the Broken Arrow Police Department. Additionally, Plaintiffs asserted V.P.'s negligence and a claim for negligent entrustment of the Jeep Cherokee against V.P.'s mother. Only the claim against City is at issue in this matter because the claims against each of the other defendants were dismissed prior to the appeal. V.P. eventually entered a plea to several counts relating to the events of October 29, 2005 and spent time in juvenile custody as a result. ¶6 City moved for summary judgment attaching the affidavit of a supervisor for the City of Tulsa Police Department who described his expertise in police pursuits and opined that the officer's actions were not "negligent, grossly negligent or shocking to the conscience" and that "the pursuit was done in conformance with recognized law enforcement standards, and within the Policies established by the Broken Arrow Police Department." The trial court granted summary judgment holding that "the Officer acted in conformance with recognized standards and the City is immune from liability pursuant to the Governmental Tort Claims Act." ¶7 On appeal, Plaintiffs asserted only that the trial court erred in its immunity determination. Rather than addressing that issue, however, the Court of Civil Appeals became focused on the duty of care owed by the officer. That court announced "reckless disregard for the safety of others" to be the standard by which the officer's conduct would be judged and then held that Plaintiffs failed to foresee and plead the standard which it had just pronounced. This Court granted certiorari to address the single issue presented on appeal regarding immunity. ANALYSIS ¶8 This Court has not addressed directly whether the exemption from liability for "[a]cts or omissions done in conformance with then current recognized standards" applies to a law enforcement officer's decision to pursue or continue to pursue a fleeing driver. However, this Court has held that the exemptions from liability which are enumerated in the GTCA do not abridge or enlarge tort law. See McCathern v. City of Okla. City,