Court Opinion

ID: 9786381
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 23:54:51.586166+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:36:44.881400
License: Public Domain

Memorandum. We affirm for the reasons stated in the majority opinion at the Appellate Division. We merely add the following to amplify our determination.
Appellant in this action seeks a recovery against the State on the theory that the alleged negligence of a State trooper resulted in the death of her husband. While it is most unfortunate that bystanders are sometimes innocently involved and injured by the police in the performance of their duties, such emotional and understandable human considerations are not a substitute for proof of negligence. The trooper in the instant case was engaged in the regulation of highway traffic. He was faced with an emergent situation and chose what he considered, in his best judgment, to be the most effective means of dealing with a motor vehicle operator who was endangering the lives of other motorists on the highway. While hindsight can often furnish reasons for following one course or another, the acts of the trooper here must be considered as of the time when, and circumstances under which, they occurred. With that in mind, *992we find that his conduct was not unreasonable or negligent. At least there was an issue of fact, the result of which is beyond our power of review.
Accordingly, the order appealed from, should be affirmed.