A woman who lost her leg after she was struck and pinned between two cars by an alleged drug dealer fleeing St. Paul police may not sue the department for negligence because it is protected under official immunity, the Minnesota Court of Appeals ordered.
The ruling upheld a district court decision dismissing a lawsuit that Mary Plaster had filed against the St. Paul Police Department after she and her boyfriend, Daniel Sanford, were severely injured Aug. 21, 2008, as bystanders in a police chase.
A car driven by Wendell Raymone Jones, who was fleeing in a police chase, slammed into Plaster's parents' car, which then pinned Plaster and Sanford between two cars as they loaded presents into her trunk. They were celebrating Plaster's 21st birthday at Schroeder's Bar and Grill at the intersection of Dale Street, Como and Front avenues. Both required multiple surgeries and each eventually had to have a leg amputated.
Plaster sued the department and the officers in the chase, alleging negligence and failure to follow the department's chase policy. A Ramsey County judge sided with the department, dismissing the case because the chase was lawful and the department's policy did not require officers to stop the pursuit.
Official immunity prevents public officials from being held responsible for damages committed under their duty, unless they have committed a "willful or malicious act."
According to the St. Paul Police Department's policy, officers may not initiate a chase if it may create dangerous conditions. They should not initiate a chase when they know the identity of the driver and can find the person later. The only exceptions are for violent crimes or serious felonies.
Jones was initiating a crack deal when officers moved in to arrest him. He fled in his Dodge Charger, leading police through St. Paul at speeds of 75 to 80 miles per hour. St. Paul police conceded that they could have tracked Jones down later, but argued that dealing crack is a serious felony. Plaster contended that a first-degree controlled substance crime didn't justify the chase that left her maimed.
In the appellate court ruling, Judge Heidi Schellhas pointed out that under state law, such a crime could be construed as a serious felony, thus providing the officers with official immunity. There was no evidence that police acted willfully or maliciously to hurt Plaster, she reasoned.
Justice Lawrence Stauber Jr. dissented, calling the department's pursuit code "outdated, ambiguous, and contradictory." Even giving police the benefit of the doubt, a jury could find the officers and the department negligent, he wrote.
"Every statute and policy relevant to police-chase activity highlights the overriding requirement of protecting the public, even if a suspect escapes," Stauber wrote. "We expect police to use common sense. Continuing a 100-mile-per-hour chase through a residential neighborhood in dark and rainy conditions toward a dangerous six-way intersection with 13 semaphores belies any common sense."
