Practice point: The Appellate Division affirmed the granting of the municipal defendant's motion for summary judgment in this action involving a collision between an unmarked police vehicle and a taxi.
The police vehicle was an authorized emergency
vehicle performing an emergency
operation, namely, pursuing a traffic violator, and its operator was authorized to
proceed through the red light, once it slowed down, pursuant to Vehicle and Traffic Law §§ 101, 114-b), and 1104 [a],[b][2]. In order to hold the municipal defendants liable, a plaintiff must
demonstrate that the officer driving the police vehicle acted with reckless disregard for the safety of others, which requires a showing
that he has intentionally done an act of an unreasonable character in
disregard of a known or obvious risk that was so great as to make it
highly probable that harm would follow and has done so with conscious
indifference to the outcome.
Here, the officer's uncontroverted testimony was that he came to a
complete stop prior to entering the intersection. The fact that he looked in the
direction of, but did not see, the approaching taxi did not render his
conduct reckless.
Student note: Issues of fact as to whether the police
lights were on or whether the siren was activated do not require a different result. A police vehicle
performing an emergency operation is not required to activate either of
these devices, in order to be entitled to the statutory privilege of
passing through a red light, pursuant to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104[c].
Case: Flynn v. Sambuca Taxi, LLC, NY Slip Op 08723 (1st Dept. 2014)
Here is the decision.
Tomorrow's issue: A physician's motion to dismiss a medical malpractice claim.
