Court Opinion

ID: 9859063
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 18:35:56.323026+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:05:51.162785
License: Public Domain

SUMMERS, Justice
(dissenting).
Because they were only to be away for a “few” minutes, I believe the duty of care owed by these police officers to this “docile” plaintiff was properly discharged by locking him in the rear of the police car, the inside of which they observed at that time to be free of any object which could cause plaintiff harm. It has not been suggested what more they could do and, under these circumstances, it is not indicated that a reasonable attitude would require police officers to remain with the plaintiff at all times.
. Nor am I willing to accept plaintiff’s testimony that he did not light matches which caused the fire. His denial that- he did so indicates to me that he was capable of doing so. The presence of burned or spent matches on the floor of the car after the fire and the uncontested proof that there were no electrical defects or other failings in the car which could cause the fire, satisfy me that plaintiff has no.t properly refuted the charge of contributory negligence.
I respectfully dissent.