Opinion ID: 1711656
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: city of milwaukee

Text: [2] Cavanaugh alleged that the City was negligent because it implemented a high-speed pursuit policy that did not comply with Wis. Stat. § 346.03(6). However, if the duty imposed by § 346.03(6) is discretionary, as opposed to ministerial, the City is afforded immunity for its actions pursuant to § 893.80(4). Whether § 346.03(6) creates a discretionary or ministerial duty is a question of law that this court reviews de novo. See Kimps, 200 Wis. 2d at 11-15. See also Larsen v. Wisconsin Power & Light Co., 120 Wis. 2d 508, 516, 355 N.W.2d 557 (Ct. App. 1984). Section 346.03(6) imposes a duty on law enforcement agencies that use emergency vehicles to establish written guidelines for high-speed pursuits: Every law enforcement agency which uses authorized emergency vehicles shall provide written guidelines for its officers and employees regarding exceeding speed limits ... and when otherwise in pursuit of actual or suspected violators. The guidelines shall consider, among other factors, road conditions, density of population, severity of crime and necessity of pursuit by vehicle. The court of appeals concluded that this statute creates a ministerial duty because law enforcement agencies are required to provide written guidelines which must consider certain factors. Cavanaugh, 191 Wis. 2d at 253.54. [3] We agree with the court of appeals that while the promulgation of guidelines in general involves a great amount of governmental discretion, § 346.03(6) makes the inclusion of certain parts of the policy promulgation ministerial. Cavanaugh, 191 Wis. 2d at 254. The statute mandates that law enforcement agencies shall provide written guidelines for its officers which shall consider specific factors. These actions are absolute, certain and imperative, involving merely the performance of a specific task. Kimps, 200 Wis. 2d at 10. Accordingly, the City is not immune from liability for damages caused by a breach of the ministerial duty set forth in § 346.03(6).
Having concluded that § 346.03(6) imposes a ministerial duty on the City, we next consider whether the City was negligent in carrying out its duty. Cavanaugh alleged that the City was negligent because its pursuit policy failed to advise its officers to consider the severity of the crime when deciding to initiate or continue a chase as mandated by § 346.03(6). The jury found that the City was 23% causally negligent with respect to the implementation of its high-speed pursuit policy. The City argued in its motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict that it was immune from liability. The circuit court denied the motion, concluding that the application of governmental immunity for negligence in high-speed pursuits required public policy considerations more properly made by an appellate court. [4] When the circuit court does not make an analysis of the evidence sustaining the verdict, as here, an appellate court must review the record as a matter of first impression to see if there is any credible evidence to support the verdict. Kolpin v. Pioneer Power & Light, 162 Wis. 2d 1, 25, 469 N.W.2d 595 (1991). In order to establish the City's liability for damages, Cavanaugh must show: (1) that the City breached its ministerial duty; and (2) a causal connection between the City's conduct and his son's injury and subsequent death. See Rockweit v. Senecal, 197 Wis. 2d 409, 418, 541 N.W.2d 742 (1995). The evidence shows that the City's policy states in relevant part: 2. Department Vehicle Operators a.) A Department vehicle operator shall only engage in a motor vehicle pursuit when: (1) He/she has activated the emergency roof lights and siren if in a marked vehicle or has activated the emergency light and siren.... (2) He notifies the Communications Division dispatcher of the pertinent facts concerning the pursuit and requests assistance .... (3) The speeds involved and/or the maneuvering practices engaged in permit the Department vehicle operator complete control of his vehicle and do not create unwarranted danger to the public or Department members. (4) The volume of pedestrian and/or vehicular traffic permits continuing the pursuit. (5) Weather and road conditions are not such that the pursuit becomes inordinately hazardous. b.) Police officers engaged in the motor vehicle pursuit of a driver who is an IMMEDIATE threat to the safety of the public may take reasonable and prudent measures to apprehend the driver without endangering the welfare of others. However, the deliberate striking of a pursued vehicle or the use of a Department or other vehicle(s) as a stationary barricade is only permitted to be used as a last resort when: (1) The occupant(s) to the vehicle being pursued is wanted for a serious felony, or (2) The manner in which the pursued vehicle is being operated creates a substantial risk of serious injury or death. c.) The Department vehicle operator or supervisor shall terminate a motor vehicle pursuit when in his/her judgment further pursuit is not warranted. Some examples of items to be considered are the volume of pedestrian and/or vehicular traffic, road and weather hazards or the distance between vehicles indicates that further pursuit will create more danger to the public and/or Department members than does the conduct of the pursued driver. City of Milwaukee, Order # 9491, January 30, 1987. The City asserts that it did not breach its ministerial duty because its policy complies with § 346.03(6). According to the City, the statute gives it discretion to decide which part of its guidelines include consideration of the severity of the crime. The City argues that it properly exercised that discretion by concluding that the severity of the crime factor should only be considered in determining whether to strike a fleeing vehicle or set up a roadblock. A majority of the court of appeals agreed with the City, concluding that [t]he City, in its discretion, chose only to consider severity of the crime with respect to the use of road blocks and that the City therefore satisfied the requirement under § 346.03(6). Cavanaugh, 191 Wis. 2d at 257 n. 1. However, the court of appeals' dissent concluded that the City's pursuit policy failed to comply with § 346.03(6) because it did not refer to the severity of the crime in the context of the actual pursuit. Cavanaugh, 191 Wis. 2d at 268-69 (Schudson, J., concurring in part, dissenting in part.) We agree with Cavanaugh that the evidence shows that the City's policy fails to consider the severity of the crime with respect to pursuing at excessive speeds as required under § 346.03(6). The City's policy states that a department vehicle operator shall only engage in a motor vehicle pursuit when: (1) the officer has activated the vehicle's emergency lights, (2) the officer notifies the dispatcher of the pertinent facts and requests assistance, (3) the speeds do not create an unwarranted danger to the public or department members, (4) the volume of pedestrian or vehicular traffic permits continuing the pursuit, and (5) weather and road conditions do not make the pursuit inordinately hazardous. None of the factors include any reference to the severity of crime. Therefore, we disagree with the City and the opinion of the majority of the court of appeals that the reference to the severity of crime elsewhere in the City's policy is adequate to comply with the mandate of § 346.03(6). The evidence shows that the City's policy considers the severity of the crime only in roadblocks and in striking a fleeing vehicle, when a serious felony is involved. However, there is no consideration of the severity of the crime when a person is being pursued for a misdemeanor or a traffic offense, as here. [5] As the court of appeals' dissent properly recognized, striking and barricading occur in only a limited number of police pursuits. Cavanaugh, 191 Wis. 2d at 268. The City's policy of considering the severity of the crime only with respect to these limited aspects of police pursuits directly contravenes the language of § 346.03(6). Therefore, we conclude that there is credible evidence to support the jury's verdict that the City was negligent with respect to the implementation of its pursuit policy.
Although we conclude that the record is sufficient to sustain the jury's finding of negligence, our review does not end there. The court of appeals erroneously concluded that if the City breached its ministerial duty by failing to comply with § 346.03(6), then liability attaches. Cavanaugh, 191 Wis. 2d at 254. As noted above, Cavanaugh must also prove causation between the City's defective pursuit policy and his damages. Rockweit, 197 Wis. 2d at 418. [6, 7] The test for determining causation is whether the conduct at issue was a substantial factor in producing the injury. Morgan v. Pennsylvania General Ins. Co., 87 Wis. 2d 723, 735, 275 N.W.2d 660 (1979). This question is generally one of fact for the jury, and we must sustain the jury's finding if there is any credible evidence under any reasonable view or any reasonable inferences derived therefrom that support [it]. Fondell v. Lucky Stores, Inc., 85 Wis. 2d 220, 230, 270 N.W.2d 205 (1978), quoting Lueck v. City of Janesville, 57 Wis. 2d 254, 262, 204 N.W.2d 6 (1973). Cavanaugh's theory regarding causation was that had the City's policy properly stated that the severity of the crime should be considered in determining whether to initiate and continue a pursuit, the pursuit here would have been terminated prior to the accident because the chase arose out of minor traffic violations. However, the fact that the City's policy was defective cannot be considered causal if either Andrade or his supervising officer, who was monitoring the chase, considered the severity of the crime despite the defective policy. Therefore, in order to determine whether the City's defective policy was a substantial factor in producing the injury, we first review the record to determine whether either Andrade or his supervisor considered the severity of the crime. [5] On adverse examination, Andrade testified that upon initiating the pursuit, the only known crimes that Zergoski had committed were speeding and going through a red light. He also stated that based on these initial traffic violations he suspected that Zergoski was intoxicated. However, other than additional speeding and going through more traffic signals, he did not note any subsequent conduct to substantiate his belief that Zergoski was intoxicated. [6] Andrade further testified that he never considered terminating the pursuit during the entire period because he did not believe, based on the lack of traffic, that Zergoski's actions were endangering others on the road. [7] Andrade's testimony on direct examination in the City's case differed somewhat. He testified that the main reason that he continued the pursuit was his suspicion that Zergoski was intoxicated and that his reckless driving posed a threat to the public. He further stated that he was convinced that Zergoski was not going to stop, and that he wanted to be close enough so that other drivers at intersections would be warned by his siren and flashing lights. Andrade's supervising officer, Buechner, was specifically asked which factors he considered in terms of his decision to allow the chase to continue. He testified that he considered pedestrian and vehicle traffic, the residential neighborhood, the road conditions, and the fact Andrade was an experienced officer. When counsel pointed out to Buechner on cross-examination that he did not state that he considered the severity of the crime, he stated that it slipped my mind when I answered the question. [8, 9] In assessing the jury's finding of causation, we consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict. Nieuwendorp v. American Family Ins. Co., 191 Wis. 2d 462, 472, 529 N.W.2d 594 (1995). Further, the credibility of witnesses and the weight given to their testimony are matters left to the jury's judgment. Bennett v. Larsen Co., 118 Wis. 2d 681, 705, 348 N.W.2d 540 (1984). [10] Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the verdict, we conclude that a reasonable view of the evidence is that neither Andrade nor Buechner considered the severity of the crimeminor traffic violationsin determining to continue the pursuit. The record indicates that Andrade never explicitly stated that he considered the severity of the crime in deciding to initiate or continue the pursuit. It is true that he testified that his decision to continue the pursuit was based on a suspicion that Zergoski was intoxicated and a threat to the public. However, he also testified that the only crimes he knew for a fact that Zergoski had committed were the initial traffic violations, and that he never considered terminating the pursuit because Zergoski's actions were not endangering others on the road. Buechner also never explicitly stated that he considered the severity of the offense in this case. On cross-examination he implied that he did in fact consider the severity of the crime by stating that he simply forgot to mention it. However, the jury in its credibility determination could have relied on his initial answer in which he did not state that he considered the severity of the crime. Having concluded that there is credible evidence in the record for the jury to conclude that neither Andrade nor his supervisor considered the severity of the crime, we next turn to the essential question of whether there is credible evidence to support the jury's finding that the City's defective policy was a substantial factor in the accident. [8] First, Zergoski testified at trial that he intended to flee and disobey traffic signals as long as Andrade continued to chase him. However, he also testified that he only wanted to get away from Andrade so that he could get out of the car and escape on foot. Zergoski testified that if Andrade had stopped chasing him, he would have no longer been speeding or running red lights. [9] In addition to the testimony of Andrade, Buechner, and Zergoski, Cavanaugh's expert witness, Leonard Territo, explicitly testified as to causation. Territo characterized Andrade's failure to consider whether to terminate the pursuit after he realized that Zergoski was not going to stop as astounding in light of the dangerousness of the pursuit. He also testified that he believed that Andrade's failure to terminate the pursuit was a substantial factor in causing the accident based on the following rationale: As long as the police officer continues pursuing, the violator will continue to flee from the officer. The theory of course is this, the whole reason for termination is that when you terminate a pursuit, eventually and invariably the individual will slow the speed down. The sooner you do it, the sooner you remove the impetus for the individual to continue to flee; and that's the whole basis for terminating pursuit, to remove the incentive for the violator to continue going through stop signs, red lights, and driving almost three times over the speed limit. When asked to consider the significance of Zergoski's testimony that he intended to leave the car upon eluding Andrade, Territo explained that: [I]f in fact the violator intends to terminate, to bail out of the car three blocks away, what it means is that if the pursuit is terminated where I say, that the vehicle never reaches the point where the accident occurred. He abandons his car, gets out and runs and the accident doesn't occur. Territo also testified as to the role of the supervising officer. According to Territo, a policy instructing a supervising officer to consider the severity of the offense would have resulted in the chase being stopped in this case. Territo explained the role of the supervising officer in a chase as follows: [O]ne the supervisor knows what the violation is, the supervisor can assess how much latitude the patrol officer should be given. What happens, the patrol officer gets caught in the pursuit.... The sergeant who is not involved hopefully is dispassionate at that point and perhaps is in a better position to make a decision.... It's the hopes that cooler heads will prevail and neutralize the natural inclination of the officer to continue because the person is running from him. [11] The dissent to this section discounts Territo's testimony because [a]n expert's opinion that some hypothetical officer would have chosen not to continue the chase, and therefore the accident would never have happened, does not provide the necessary link between the City's failure to perform its ministerial duty and the damages in this case. Justice Geske's dissent at 337. However, Territor's testimony was not limited to a hypothetical officer. Rather, he testified that under this specific fact situation, the City's defective policy was a substantial factor in causing Cavanaugh's injuries. Where more than one inference can be drawn from the evidence, this court must accept the inference drawn by the jury. Bennett, 118 Wis. 2d at 705. [12] The dissent also criticizes Territo's testimony on the ground that it is mere speculation to conclude that the chase would have stopped prior to the accident had Andrade and his supervisor been properly informed by the City's policy. Since we have initially determined that the City is not immune from liability, we conclude that issues of causal negligence are properly for the jury's consideration. The United States Supreme Court in Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378, 391 (1989), reached a similar conclusion when discussing the necessary showing of causation for a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 liability claim based on inadequacy of police training: Predicting how a hypothetically well-trained officer would have acted under the circumstances may not be an easy task for the factfinder, particularly since matters of judgment may be involved, and since officers who are well trained are not free from error and might perhaps react very much like the untrained officer in similar circumstances. But judge and jury, doing their respective jobs, will be adequate to the task. The dissent addresses what it determines to be disturbing public policy implications of this opinion. The dissent states that a non-defective policy would encompass a presumption that continuation of pursuit is justified only for major offenses and those involving other violations should be terminated. Justice Geske's dissent at 338. Nothing in this opinion or in § 346.03(6) creates such a presumption. Section 346.03(6) only requires that law enforcement agencies have a pursuit policy that mandates that officers consider the severity of the crime when exceeding speed limits in pursuit of actual or suspected violators, not that the severity of the crime is dispositive in an officer's decision. Further, this case is not about the propriety of high-speed chases and officers being stripped of their discretion. [10] The court should neither advance perceived public policy considerations nor decide the case based on these perceived considerations. The legislature has spoken by setting out the public policy considerations in § 346.03(6), which balance the need to apprehend suspects with the dangers inherent in high-speed chases. The legislature has determined that it is good public policy to require an officer engaging in a high-speed chase to consider the severity of the offense in relation to the danger posed by the chase. We agree with the dissent to this section that imposing such a balancing test may be difficult in the compact and intense framework of a high-speed pursuit. Justice Geske's dissent at 332 n. 1. Nevertheless, this is the determination mandated by the legislature, not this court. Based on the above, we conclude that there is credible evidence to support the jury's verdict that the City was 23% causally negligent with respect to its defective pursuit policy. Therefore, we reverse the court of appeals' decision as to the City.