Opinion ID: 2405385
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The Pursuit Issue

Text: Garden contends that the Superior Court erred in ruling as a matter of law pursuant to Superior Court Civil Rule 50(a)(1) that Sutton was engaged in a pursuit at the time of the accident with Garden. The trial court's ruling allowed the defendants to invoke the protection of 21 Del.C. § 4106, which allows recovery only for gross negligence or willful or wanton negligence against a party who is the driver of an emergency vehicle ... responding to an emergency call or ... in pursuit of an actual or suspected violator of the law.... We find that the trial court erred in concluding that there was no legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find for Garden on this issue. Super.Ct.Civ.R. 50(a)(1). The record reveals that conflicting testimony was offered as to the circumstances in which an officer is deemed to be in pursuit. The trial court concluded, however, that the policy basis underlying section 4106 was sufficiently important to compel a construction of the term pursuit broad enough to foreclose jury determination of this issue. We disagree. By extending the protection of section 4106 to instances where the officer in question is not requested or required to assist in the pursuit, law enforcement and other emergency personnel will not be compelled to exercise the appropriate level of care. If Sutton's response was not required, he should not be afforded the protection of section 4106. This issue presents a jury question.