Court Opinion

ID: 9570788
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:26:17.611307+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:14:00.180791
License: Public Domain

ELLETT, Chief Justice
(concurring with explanation).
The question of negligence of a police officer driving a motor vehicle in the scope of official duty is to be determined from the provisions of Article 2, Title 41, Chapter 6, U.C.A.1953, Replacement Volume 5A. That article relates to traffic regulations and penalties for violations thereof.
Section 41-6-14 provides “authorized emergency vehicles shall be exempt from the driving restrictions imposed under sections . . . ” wherein specific regulations are set forth. Subsection (a)(2) of Section 14 provides that the exemptions apply to emergency vehicles when audible signals are given as reasonably necessary and when the vehicle is equipped with at least one lighted red light, etc. The section then provides that a police vehicle need not be equipped with, or display, a red light.
The driver of a police car is thus excused from the penalties provided for the violation of the named exemptions when he sounds the signal “as may be reasonably necessary.” He is under no obligation to display a red light in order to come within the exclusion.
In this case there is no charge made against the officer for the violation of any law. If there were, then the question could be raised as to whether or not it was reasonable to give the audible signal.
What this case is about is whether the officer is liable in a civil action to the plaintiff. Subsection (b) of Section 41-6-14 is the critical one to be examined. It provides: “The foregoing provisions shall not relieve the driver of an authorized emergency vehicle from the duty to drive with due regard for the safety of all persons, . .” The driver of a police car, thus, is liable in a civil action for a failure to drive with due regard for the safety of others.