Court Opinion

ID: 9537013
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 07:11:17.716838+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:55:45.405604
License: Public Domain

Holmes, J.,
dissenting: I join in the dissent of Herd, J. and add the following comment. Syllabus 6 of the majority opinion holds:
“The privileges granted by K.S.A. 8-1506 do not relieve the driver of an emergency vehicle from the duty to drive with due regard for the safety of all persons and does not protect the driver from the consequences of reckless disregard for the safety of others (K.S.A. 8-1506[d]).”
I agree with that statement of the law but unfortunately, in my opinion, the majority has not followed it. Obviously, it is a question of fact whether Officer Shore operated his emergency vehicle “with due regard for the safety of all persons” or in “reckless disregard for the safety of others” and the facts relating *758to the officer’s actions and duty should be determined by the jury and not on a motion for summary judgment based upon minimal discovery.