 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Fisher v. Miami-Dade County9/9/2004
Rosa Lee Fisher, individually ("plaintiff"), and as the personal representative of Mark Anthony Fisher ("Fisher"), appeals the trial court's order granting Miami-Dade County's ("County") motion for summary judgment. We affirm.
The pertinent facts are undisputed. In the early morning hours of January 17, 1997, Fisher was a passenger in a car driven by his friend, Robert Williams ("Williams"). At approximately 1:00 a.m., three men observed Williams' car speeding *336 through an intersection on N.W. 27th Avenue at about 100-120 miles per hour. A marked Miami-Dade police vehicle was in pursuit.
The three men attempted to follow the two cars but lost sight of the vehicles. When the men reached the intersection of N.W. 71st Street and N.W. 27th Avenue, they observed Williams' car wrapped around a concrete metro-rail support pole. There were no police officers in sight. One of the men called 911 to report the accident. Williams died on the scene and Fisher was airlifted to Jackson Memorial Hospital, where he died.
It was later determined that Williams, who had several prior DUI convictions and multiple license suspensions, had a blood alcohol level of .23%. Fisher, meanwhile, had a blood alcohol level of .09%.
As determined in discovery, the Miami-Dade Police Department's pursuit policy permits officers to engage in pursuits when they have a reasonable belief that the fleeing suspect has committed or attempted to commit a violent felony. All other pursuits are prohibited. There is no evidence, however, indicating: any calls to the Miami-Dade communications bureau from any police officers reporting a pursuit, the identity of the police officer or police vehicle involved in this pursuit, or how or why this pursuit commenced. There is also no evidence as to whether the officer knew or should have known that there was a passenger in the car he was pursuing. Furthermore, there is no evidence to show whether or not the officer abandoned the pursuit prior to the accident.
The plaintiff filed a complaint against the County for negligently conducting a pursuit contrary to sound police procedures and their own policy. The County sought summary judgment asserting that the police did not owe a duty to Fisher as a passenger in a fleeing vehicle.
The trial court determined that a police officer does not owe a duty to a passenger in a fleeing vehicle unless an officer knew or should have known of the passenger's presence in the vehicle. This appeal followed.
Although Florida courts have addressed whether a duty is owed to innocent bystanders and whether a duty is owed to the drivers of fleeing vehicles, they have not addressed whether a police officer owes a duty to a passenger in a vehicle being pursued by the police. We determine there is no duty.
The Supreme Court, in City of Pinellas Park v. Brown, 604 So.2d 1222 (Fla.1992), held that the police owe a duty to innocent bystanders or third parties injured as a result of high speed chases of fleeing suspects. In City of Pinellas Park, the police initiated pursuit of a car that ran a red light. Between fourteen to twenty other police cars joined the pursuit at speeds up to 120 miles per hour. The vehicle being pursued struck another vehicle killing both female occupants of the other car. The Court held that the pursued vehicle "engaged in such reckless conduct primarily because he was being chased by the police, and that this misconduct would have ceased had the police discontinued the pursuit." City of Pinellas Park, 604 So.2d at 1228.
However, in Bryant v. Beary, 766 So.2d 1157 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000), the Fifth District Court of Appeal held that the police do not owe a duty of care to active law breakers who are injured as the result of high speed chases. The court rationalized that "[c]ommon s
Page 1 2 3 Florida DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|