Opinion ID: 1627664
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 11

Heading: Officer Ratliff's Liability

Text: Plaintiffs' claims against Officer Ratliff asserted that he acted negligently by: (1) operating his police car at a rate of speed that was high, excessive, and dangerous under the circumstances and conditions then and there existing, (2) failing to keep a careful lookout for other vehicles; and (3) failing to stop or slow his vehicle or sound warning of his approach when exercise of the highest degree of care so required in order to avoid the collision. Plaintiffs argue Officer Ratliffs' conduct was contrary to sections 300.100.2(3) and 300.100.4, section 304.022, and departmental policies. Defendants maintain that summary judgment was appropriately granted on the claims against Officer Ratliff because there is no evidence he was negligent, and further because he is protected by the official immunity and public duty doctrines. Defendants argue that Plaintiffs' contentions that Officer Ratliff was negligent in the course of a police pursuit are meaningless because Plaintiffs previously conceded that Officer Ratliff was not involved in a pursuit at the time of the collision, but rather was responding to an officer-in-need-of-aid call. Defendants' non-pursuit arguments are disingenuous. The record reveals repeated allegations by Plaintiffs describing Officer Ratliff as being involved in an emergency pursuit. Indeed, Officer Ratliff's own deposition describes him as being in pursuit of the fleeing suspect before the collision. The trial court's summary judgment order describes Officer Ratliff as driving in response to an emergency call of the highest priority, and specifically an officer in need of aid at the time of the collision. Despite the disagreement about this fact, however, there is no question that Officer Ratliff was operating a motor vehicle in response to a police emergency at the time of this accident.