Opinion ID: 1711656
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: andrade

Text: We next consider the application of the defense of immunity to Andrade's alleged negligence. Cavanaugh argued at trial that Andrade was negligent in failing to terminate the pursuit and negligent with respect to the operation of his vehicle. Andrade asserts that the decisions to initiate and continue a high-speed pursuit are discretionary in nature and therefore entitled to immunity under § 893.80(4). Cavanaugh argues that even if the decisions to initiate and continue the pursuit are discretionary, and as such, normally entitled to immunity, the defense of immunity is not available when an officer negligently operates his or her vehicle contrary to Wis. Stat. § 346.03(5). [13, 14] As we noted at the outset, a municipal officer is immune under § 893.80(4) for the performance of discretionary acts. Kimps, 200 Wis. 2d at 10. We agree with the court of appeals that an officer's decision to initiate or continue a high-speed chase is a discretionary act entitled to immunity. Cavanaugh, 191 Wis. 2d at 258, citing Thornton v. Shore, 666 P. 2d 655, 667-68 (Kan. 1983). Several jurisdictions have recently recognized that an officer's decision to initiate and continue a high-speed chase is discretionary. [11] Cavanaugh asserts that under § 346.03(5), discretionary act immunity is inapplicable if the officer fails to operate his or her vehicle with due regard under the circumstances for the safety of all persons. We agree with Cavanaugh and the dissent that the failure to meet this standard constitutes negligence. See Justice Abrahamson's dissent at 324. However, even assuming Andrade was negligent with respect to the initiation or continuation of the chase, he is immune under § 893.80(4). Inherent in the decision to pursue is the decision to speed. See City of Lancaster v. Chambers, 883 S.W.2d 650, 655 (Tex. 1994). [15] However, nothing in § 346.03 provides that immunity afforded to the discretionary decision to initiate or continue a pursuit is subsumed by § 346.03(5). Although most states have adopted emergency-vehicle-operations statutes that are substantially similar to § 346.03, [12] it does not follow that the state's immunity provisions are rendered inapplicable. We note that some jurisdictions have specifically applied provisions of immunity statutes while also recognizing the existence of the statutory equivalent to § 346.03(5). [13] In the absence an expression of clear legislative intent to abolish discretionary act immunity in the context of § 346.03, we conclude that § 346.03(5) does not preclude the defense of immunity for the discretionary acts of initiating or continuing a high-speed pursuit. See City of Lancaster, 883 S.W.2d at 656. n. 5. [16] Our holding that § 893.80(4) provides immunity for an officer's decision to initiate or continue a pursuit does not mean, as suggested by the dissent to this section, that officers are afforded blanket immunity from all liability by virtue of their involvement in a pursuit. We agree with the court of appeals that an officer may be negligent pursuant to § 346.03(5) for failing to physically operate his or her vehicle with due regard for the safety of others. This distinction between an officer's discretionary decision to initiate and continue a pursuit and the physical operation of the vehicle has been recognized by other jurisdictions interpreting language similar to § 346.03(5). In Kelly v. City of Tulsa, 791 P.2d 826 (Okla. App. 1990), a son sued the city and police officer for wrongful death of his mother who was killed in a collision with a vehicle being chased by police. The court in analyzing the duty of due care under the equivalent of § 346.03(5) stated: [W]e find that the duty of due care created by the emergency vehicle statutes applies only to the operation of the emergency vehicle itself. The statutes exempt emergency drivers from certain operational rules of the road, such as obedience to speed limits, parking restrictions and stop signals. The statutes recognize the public necessity for a fire, ambulance or police vehicle in an emergency situation to be driven unhindered by the traffic rules governing ordinary vehicles.... Plaintiff's real objection is to [the officer's] decision to initiate and continue police pursuit. This is not the consideration addressed by [the emergency vehicle statutes]. Kelly, 791 P.2d at 828. In Thornton, similar to this case, a police officer pursued a speeding vehicle which ran stop signs and was driven recklessly until it collided with a third party. The Kansas Supreme Court, interpreting the same language contained in § 346.03(5), explained: To extend the due care requirement to the decision to chase or to continue the chase and hence make the officer the insurer of the law violator would emasculate the privileges and immunities afforded by [§ 346.03] and thwart the public policy purpose of the statute.... We conclude the due care requirement of [§ 346.03(5)] applies only to the police officer's physical operation of his own vehicle and not to the decision to chase or continue to chase a law violator. Thornton, 666 P.2d at 667-68. [17] In sum, despite the general discretionary act immunity set forth in § 893.80(4), a negligence action may be sustained against an officer involved in a high-speed pursuit on the ground that he or she breached the duty to operate the vehicle with due regard under the circumstances under § 346.03(5). However, the negligent operation under § 346.03(5) does not include the discretionary decisions to initiate or continue a pursuit; such discretionary decisions continue to be afforded immunity under § 893.80(4). With these general principles in mind, we turn to Andrade's alleged negligence.
Although Cavanaugh proceeded on the theories that Andrade was negligent for continuing the chase and negligent in the operation of the vehicle, the case was properly submitted to the jury solely on the question of negligent operation. The jury answered yes to the following special verdict question: At and immediately prior to the accident of January 13, 1989, was the defendant, Robert Andrade, negligent with respect to the operation of the motor vehicle. The jury also found that such negligence was a cause of the accident. Cavanaugh argues that the jury could have properly found Andrade negligent because: (1) Andrade was driving too fast for conditions; (2) Andrade's speed may have caused Zergoski to drive faster; and (3) Andrade was following too closely. Additionally, Cavanaugh's complaint alleged that Andrade was negligent with respect to lookout and management and control of his vehicle. The court of appeals noted that there was testimony in the record that Andrade's speed may have been too fast for conditions and that the roads were slippery with patches of ice. It concluded that this provided sufficient evidence to support the jury's finding of negligence. Cavanaugh, 191 Wis. 2d at 260. Although it is necessary to discuss Andrade's alleged negligence in the operation of his vehicle in order to set the framework for determining whether such negligence was causal, we need not decide the issue of negligence based on the facts of this case. Because we conclude that the issue of causation is dispositive, we decline to further consider whether the evidence supports the jury's finding of negligence. See Oakley v. Fireman's Fund of Wisconsin, 162 Wis. 2d 821, 832 n. 9, 470 N.W.2d 882 (1991) (Wisconsin appellate courts need not decide an issue if the resolution of another issue is dispositive). Turning to the question of causation, we first address the evidence of negligence identified by both the court of appeals and Cavanaugh that Andrade engaged in excessive speeds or speeds too fast for conditions. As discussed above, reliance on this evidence is misplaced because it relates directly to Andrade's discretionary decision to continue the high-speed pursuit. We next look to Cavanaugh's remaining arguments in support of the jury's verdict which properly relate to Andrade's alleged negligence in the physical operation of his vehicle. He asserts that Andrade failed to maintain management and control, was following too closely, and failed to maintain proper lookout. However, the fact that Andrade's vehicle was between one-half and one block behind Zergoski at the time of the accident and did not make any physical contact with either vehicle undercuts those arguments because they lack the causal connection necessary between the alleged negligence and Cavanaugh's injuries. For example, Cavanaugh argues that the jury could have determined that Andrade was negligent in the operation of his vehicle with respect to management and control. The duty of management and control requires a driver to keep his or her vehicle under control so that when danger appears, the driver may stop, reduce speeds, change course, or take other proper means to avoid injury or damage. Wis. JICivil 1105. Here, Andrade did not collide with either vehicle. Cavanaugh also alleged that Andrade was following too closely. However, the nearest that any witness placed Andrade's vehicle behind Zergoski's vehicle at the time of the collision was one-half block. Operators of vehicles should space themselves at a distance that will ensure proper braking and reaction time in the event that the preceding vehicle slows or stops. See Wis JICivil 1112 Operation of Automobile Following Another. This court has previously recognized that the purpose of holding a trailing driver to a proper distance is to keep him in position to stop or so control his car as to prevent him from doing injury because of the action of the car ahead, whatever be the cause of that action.... Northland Ins. Co. v. Avis Rent-A-Car, 62 Wis. 2d 643, 648, 215 N.W.2d 439 (1974)(quoted source omitted). Since Andrade did not collide with the preceding vehicles, any evidence regarding proper distances for braking or reaction time to prevent injury is irrelevant to the question of causation. Cavanaugh's claim that the jury could have determined that Andrade was negligent as to lookout is also unpersuasive. A driver has the duty to exercise ordinary care to keep a careful lookout ahead and about him or her for other vehicles that may be within or approaching the driver's course of travel. Wis JICivil 1055. Again, even assuming arguendo that Andrade was negligent in this respect, such negligence was not causal because Andrade did not collide with either vehicle. Andrade's failure to maintain proper lookout could not be a substantial factor in the accident because it would have occurred regardless of Andrade's negligent lookout. [18] Based on the above, we conclude that there is no credible evidence in the record for a reasonable jury to find that any alleged negligence of Andrade with respect to the physical operation of his motor vehicle was a substantial factor in causing the accident. Accordingly, we reverse the court of appeals' decision affirming the jury's verdict finding Andrade 2% causally negligent and direct the circuit court to grant Andrade's motion for judgment notwithstanding the jury's verdict.