EMERGENCY VEHICLE COLLISIONS:
A RISK TO PUBLIC SAFETY

Powers & Santola, LLP
39 North Pearl Street
Albany, New York 12207
518-478-6616

High speed police pursuits, on television and in motion pictures, have entertained the viewing public for years. These scenes invariably depict the spectacle of blaring police sirens and the blur of flashing lights racing through city streets in the pursuit of a fleeing offender. When all is said and done, the resulting conclusion usually involves the apprehension and incarceration of the villain, but not before an explosive climax, delivering maximum destruction to property while maintaining little or no loss of life to innocent bystanders. While the imagery of this gripping fiction is meant to thrill and excite, the reality is far less entertaining.

Our firm recently represented a young man involved in an emergency motor vehicle accident where he sustained deep lacerations to his right hand and a fractured foot. These injuries, however, pale in comparison to the emotional and mental trauma he suffered at the loss of his fiancée, a young woman also involved in the accident.

The couple had gone out one evening to a local establishment not far from where they lived. While there, they met with friends and enjoyed an evening together. As the night progressed and the hour grew late, they both decided to go home. The establishment is located at an intersection that is controlled by two stop signs placed for vehicles traveling east and west. The road traveling north and south allows vehicles the right of way. As the couple left the establishment that evening, they went to cross the intersection to reach their car, which they had parked in the vacant lot across the street. Before crossing, the young man had looked in both directions to see if there was any oncoming traffic. As he looked to the south, he noticed the headlights of a vehicle that had just crested a hill some 712 ft. away. Believing they had enough time, he led his fiancée across. Upon nearing the other side of the road, the young man looked back at his fiancée when suddenly they were struck by the vehicle traveling north in speeds excess of the posted speed limit. That fleeting glance was the last time our client saw his fiancée alive.

The automobile that struck the couple was a county police vehicle. Its operator was an officer on patrol in the area. According to §1104 of the New York State vehicle and traffic laws, the operator of an emergency vehicle may exercise certain privileges pertaining to the rules of the road, but only when involved in an emergency procedure. These include the right to proceed through a red light or stop sign, but only after slowing down in order to pass with a reasonable degree of safety; exceeding the speed limit as long as there is no danger to life or property; and disregarding rules directing movement or turning in specified directions. These exemptions may be applied only when there is an audible signal (i.e. siren) and only when there is at least one lighted lamp that can be visible from a distance of 500 ft.

Approximately five minutes prior to the accident, the deputy was traveling in a southerly direction when he pulled in front of the business and slowed down to an estimated speed of 20 mph, or less, to look for suspicious activity that included arguing or fighting on the porch of the establishment. Satisfied that nothing illegal was taking place, the deputy continued south, up the gradual incline of the road. The police officer had previously traveled past this particular business at or around the same time and day of the week as the night of the accident because he knew that on occasion the bar would be open and that patrons would be in that bar. In any event, he was familiar with the geography and knew the topography of the road well. He also admitted in his testimony that he considered the intersection by the bar to be a populated area and that he was aware patrons, at times, would park their vehicles across the street when the parking lot behind the bar was full.

As he traveled south, cresting the hill, it was the deputy’s admission that he witnessed another vehicle traveling north in excess of the speed limit. The deputy placed the vehicle within the 40 mph portion of the roadway, traveling at a speed of 60 mph.

Traveling north before reaching the crest in the road where the approaching intersection would not yet be visible, there are three posted speed zones that change from 55 mph to 40 mph. Two of these signs are posted for the 40 mph speed zone, which is then followed by an advisory speed sign. The advisory speed sign is used as an indication of the impending intersection and to suggest that approaching vehicles reduce their speed. It was the deputy’s intention, once he had situated his vehicle in the north bound lane, to stop the speeding vehicle for a traffic violation.

The officer’s patrol vehicle was equipped with the “flashing red light bar” on the roof of the car, as well as lights positioned in the grill of the vehicle that flashed back and forth known as “wig-wags.” In addition to these lights, his vehicle was also equipped with an audible siren and horn. Despite acknowledging that he had made a decision to stop the speeding vehicle for a traffic infraction and travel north after that vehicle, the deputy never once turned on his emergency lights or siren. The only light he had in operation was his headlights, on low beam. The deputy accelerated his vehicle in excess of the speed limit as he approached the top of the hill in order to keep the offending vehicle in sight. It was the deputy’s defense that he had not turned on his emergency lights because he was not yet in the position to stop the speeding vehicle.

In the officer’s own words, he admitted that a pedestrian attempting to cross the intersection may observe the oncoming headlights, but may not know if his vehicle was a car, a truck, or a police vehicle because he did not have his emergency lights on. He provided absolutely no warning to possible pedestrians attempting to cross the intersection as he crested the hill, exceeding the speed limit of 40 mph, except for removing his foot from the accelerator, and he did this not out of concern for pedestrians, but instead out of concern for colliding with another vehicle traveling east or west. He testified that he never once considered the safety of possible pedestrians crossing the intersection; regardless of the fact that he knew the area to be populated, knew that patrons parked across the street, and knew that visibility would be poor because there is only one street lamp that illuminates that intersection. All of these factors were argued in order to prove reckless disregard and negligence on behalf of the deputy. However, what was more important is whether the deputy had disobeyed any of the rules or regulations provided in the Standard Operating Procedure manual.

For the purposes of this case, three sections from the Standard Operating Procedure manual were used; Rules and regulations concerning the operation of emergency lights and sirens, The activity of pursuing another vehicle, and Rules and regulations when stopping a vehicle for a traffic violation. Under compliance with the Standard Operating Procedure manual labeled under Rules and regulations concerning the operation of emergency lights and sirens, when an officer is responding to or engaged in an emergency situation, they are to turn on their overhead warning light. It was the deputy’s position that he was not yet engaged in an emergency operation or high speed pursuit of the speeding vehicle even after he turned around and traveled north in excess of the speed limit. He states that he was merely attempting to maintain a visual of the vehicle so that he could engage the vehicle after the intersection; therefore the procedures under the above section did not apply to him.

He admitted that he was engaged in the operation of attempting to stop a vehicle labeled under Rules and regulations when stopping a vehicle for a traffic violation, once he made the action of turning his vehicle around to travel in a northerly direction in order to stop the vehicle he estimated to be speeding. Paragraph 4 of the rules and regulations labeled under the above section state that, “In stopping the violator, the officer should begin with the simplest and safest procedure.” Paragraphs A and B, again under the same, state to, “Stop the vehicle as soon as practical after the offense has been committed,” and “Turn on emergency lights.” In his defense he stated that he was not in violation of this provision as he crested the hill and traveled toward the intersection in a northerly direction after the vehicle because he was not prepared to have the vehicle pull over and stop at this point.

The deputy remarked that he was prepared to enter the intersection in a safe fashion to protect potential pedestrians even though he has no explanation as to how any possible pedestrian crossing that intersection would be able to tell that he was an emergency vehicle since he had not activated his emergency lights, he had performed no additional action, besides the use of his headlights, to warn anybody who might be walking across the intersection that he was coming, and he had not expected pedestrians to be crossing the intersection when he had made the decision not to activate his warning lights and travel in excess of the speed limit through the intersection.

To this day he is not aware of any evidence, be it eyewitness testimony or other, to verify the existence of the speeder he claims to have been following the night of the accident. Through the evidence presented at court, the Judge ruled for the plaintiff, awarding him in excess of one hundred and fifty thousand dollars for the injuries he sustained resulting from the defendants negligence.

Across the United States, there is a startling rate of police chases ranging from small towns and villages, to major metropolitan areas. These occurrences seldom produce the storybook endings we are used to seeing on film. More often than we may like to admit, the innocent do fall subject to the reckless abandonment of others. The resulting deaths or injuries and the consequent sorrow of family and friends, ripple through our communities and into our homes.

In 1996 a study was done “asserting that there are some 100,000 police chases a year in this country and federal officials had documented 5,306 deaths in the preceding sixteen years as a direct result of police pursuits” (Solomon, p.128). According to a study done in 2002, statistics show that the number of pursuits continues to increase, as well as, the number of pursuit-related injuries and deaths. Some estimate each year there are between 400 and 500 deaths, but most say there is an average of one person killed every day as a result of a police pursuit. Innocent third parties amount to 42 percent of the persons killed or injured in police pursuits, and 1 out of every 100 high-speed pursuits result in a fatality (Hill, p.15). The number of innocent bystanders killed as the direct result of police pursuits is difficult to comprehend. According to reports from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), “314 people were killed during pursuits in 1998. Of this total, 2 were police officers and 198 were individuals being chased. The remaining 114 were either occupants of unrelated vehicles or pedestrians” (Hill p.15). In one year, 114 innocent lives were destroyed. Each one of those individuals was someone’s husband, father, mother, daughter, son, or wife. After looking at these numbers, it should be clear that something has to be done in order to better ensure the safety of pedestrians, as well as the occupants of vehicles on the road.

Without eliminating police pursuits completely, efforts should be made to reduce the risk to innocent bystanders. It is impractical to believe that death and serious injury can be eliminated as a byproduct of police pursuit, but there is little question as to whether police departments should do more. By requiring proof of “reckless disregard” under the application of tort or negligence law, and in doing so setting the threshold for monetary recovery relatively high, neither the courts nor the legislature have done anything to encourage improvement within the law enforcement agencies. Until the necessary changes are made, the legislative approval of statewide standards should be considered.

References

1. Hill, J. (2002, July). High-Speed Police Pursuits: Dangers, Dynamics, and Risk Reduction. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, 71. 14-18.

2. Solomon, Stephen S. Emergency Vehicle Accidents: Prevention and Reconstruction. Arizona: Lawyers & Judges Publishing Co., Inc., 1999.