After battling for over five years in federal and state courts, Chris Cooke of our Traverse City office, assisted by Andrew Brege of our Grand Rapids office, finally obtained summary disposition in favor of a township and its responding police and fire fighters in a fatal traffic accident case that created a furor in the local community.

On July 18, 2003, a young serviceman on leave from his commission was driving his 2002 Ford Ranger eastbound on I-94 in the early morning hours. He left the travel portion of the roadway, crossed the median and vaulted headlong into a westbound semi-tractor trailer. Evidence showed that the force of the accident was equivalent to the truck striking a brick wall at 120 mph. The decedent’s truck was blown into pieces and the crushed cab portion of the truck, entrapping the decedent, was thrown over 200 feet down the highway. Tragically, blood tests revealed that the decedent had high levels of cocaine and alcohol in his body at the time of the impact.

When the first township officer arrived on the scene, he saw a passenger car with two occupants, a semi trailer with obvious front end damage and the remains of the 2002 Ford Ranger scattered in different areas of the highway. There were injured passengers in and around the other vehicles. The officer first approached the remains of the decedent’s truck and could only see one arm hanging out of the mangled vehicle. He could not obtain a pulse and could not access the remains of the vehicle. He also talked to two pedestrians who told him they likewise could not obtain a pulse. The officer believed, based on his experience and training, that noone could have survived this accident. The responding firefighter made similar observations and tried to crawl under the truck to no avail.

Two and a half hours later, after the Michigan State Police had diagramed the scene and given authorization to remove the remains of the vehicle, a tow truck was used to right the decedent’s truck. While workers were doing so, the medical examiner at the scene noticed that the occupant was still breathing. Jaws of Life were used to extract him from the vehicle, but he died while being air lifted to the hospital.

In mid-2005, the decedent’s estate filed a lawsuit against the township, the police officer and the firefighter, among others. The paramedics, who were also defendants in the case, pointed fingers at our firm’s clients and a witness came forward claiming that he informed the officers that he saw the occupant still breathing prior to our arrival.

The estate alleged that the township and its employees had violated the decedent’s Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights and acted in a grossly negligent fashion in failing to properly assess the scene, analyze information from bystanders and by failing to rescue the decedent.

The plaintiff uncovered no policy or procedure that was unconstitutional, and the township provided proper training to the responders. The plaintiff could not prove its case against the township on these claims, and the township was accordingly dismissed.

Contrary to popular belief, there is no constitutional right to be rescued or a duty for public safety officers to rescue a person, unless the officer has a special relationship with the person in danger. There is another exception if a public officer performs an act that increases the risk that a person could be exposed to harm by another person. The official could be liable if a person suffers injuries caused by a danger created by the officer.

Quite simply, the plaintiff did not present evidence that carried the day under either exception. The court held that the decedent’s actions, not those of the police, caused his entrapment. Also, considering the high speed collision, the degree of the damage and the lack of a pulse in the only exposed limb, it was reasonable for the officer and the fire fighter to conclude that the victim had not survived the accident. Thus, the defendants had no knowledge that their actions increased any special risk to the decedent. The federal court dismissed the constitutional claims against the individual defendants.

The federal judge declined to rule on the gross negligence claim under Michigan law, however, so the estate brought a second suit in circuit court. The plaintiff made many of the same arguments regarding the remaining state claim, but the court held that the officers’ actions were reasonable under the circumstances . Their actions did not amount to conduct "so reckless as to demonstrate a substantial lack of concern for whether an injury results," and therefore were not grossly negligent.

The court’s ruling made consideration of other defense arguments unnecessary and the litigation has been successfully and favorably concluded.