Court Opinion

ID: 9488526
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 12:47:57.372582+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:52:56.471681
License: Public Domain

BRIGHT, Senior Circuit Judge,
concurring separately.
I concur in the result but write separately.
Judge Ebel, writing for himself and Judge McWilliams, reads the Kansas case law to require an affirmance on grounds that the *875defendants’ conduct did not proximately cause the accident here in question. While I do not quarrel with this interpretation, I add my separate views so as to indicate that the modern trend of police chase cases leaves the proximate cause issue to the jury.
In the majority of jurisdictions, proximate cause is considered to be a question of fact when the plaintiff alleges negligence on the part of police in commencing or continuing pursuit. Haynes v. Hamilton County, 888 S.W.2d 606, 612 (Tenn.1994) (providing numerous citations to other jurisdictions). In Haynes, the Tennessee Supreme Court reversed an earlier ruling in Nevill v. City of Tullahoma, 756 S.W.2d 226 (1988). The Court noted that New York and Florida had also reconsidered the issue and adopted the emerging majority view. Haynes, at 612.
While I recognize that high speed pursuit may be necessary for apprehending dangerous criminals, I cannot conclude that all chases are reasonable no matter what the circumstances. See Haynes, at 613 (‘We are convinced that the majority rule is the better-reasoned and more persuasive rule, because it recognizes that public safety is the ultimate goal of law enforcement, and that when the risk of injury to members of the public is high, that risk should be weighed against the police interest in immediate arrest of a suspect.”); Travis v. City of Mesquite, 830 S.W.2d 94, 98 (Tex.1992) (“Police officers must balance the risk to the public with their duty to enforce the law to choose an appropriate course of conduct. Public safety should not be thrown to the winds in the heat of the chase.”)
The rule reiterated in the Hammig case has not been set in stone by the Kansas Supreme Court. Hammig was a citizen pursuit case rather than a police pursuit case and is factually distinguishable from our case. The commentary of the majority in Thornton also produced multiple dissents. Nevertheless, the reading of Kansas case law does not demand or require a reversal of the district court’s judgment.