Deputy files civil lawsuit against 9-1-1 caller after he was injured during assa

[unfy]

http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/local&id=9207650

HOUSTON (KTRK) -- It's something you would probably least expect after calling 9-1-1 during an emergency -- a lawsuit. If a deputy was hurt, would you be financially responsible?

A deputy is now suing a woman who called for help during an emergency. It all stems from a deputy-involved shooting that happened in Katy last year.

The deputy says he was injured when she made that call from her subdivision. In this lawsuit, he claims the homeowner failed to adequately warn 9-1-1 of the dangerous situation he was walking into.


This better not go anywhere.

For gun rights supporters, it'd be easy to make jabs at "why get sued for calling 911 during an emergency" - but that's not really necessary - this is just horse**** to begin with.

[gsd]

Were I to be the judge presiding over that case, I would throw it out and remind the deputy of the inherent risks of the job he willingly undertook.

[Phantom]

Were I to be the judge presiding over that case, I would throw it out and remind the deputy of the inherent risks of the job he willingly undertook.

Actually after the U.S. Supreme court ruled that Law Enforcement generally has no constitutional duty to protect citizens from third party harm....but in a way are there to merely enforce laws.

References:
DeShaney v. Winnebago County Social Services, 489 U.S. 189, 196, 197 (1989).
Rivera v. City of Providence, 402 F.3d 27 (1st Cir. 2005).
Merriweather v. Marion County, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS (Indiana Southern Dis

Additional Cases:
(Warren v. District of Columbia is one of the leading cases of this type.)

Riss v. City of New York, 22 N.Y.2d 579, 293 NYS2d 897, 240 N.E.2d 860 (N.Y. Ct. of Ap. 1958); 
Hartzler v. City of San Jose, (1975) 46 Cal.App.3d 6, 120 Cal.Rptr. 5
Davidson v. City of Westminister, (1982) 32 Cal.3d 197, 185 Cal.Rptr. 252
Westbrooks v. State, (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 1203, 219 Cal.Rtr. 674
Ne Casek v. City of Los Angeles, (1965) 233 Cal.App.2d 131, 43 Cal.Rptr. 294
Susman v. City of Los Angeles, et al (1969) 269 Cal.App.2d 803, 75 Cal.Rptr. 240
Antique Arts Corp. v. City of Torrence, (1974) 39 Cal.App.3d 588, 114 Cal.Rptr. 332
Bowers v. DeVito, (1982) 686 F.2d 616. (No federal constitutional requirements that police provide protection.)
Calgorides v. Mobile, (1985) 475 So.2d 560.
Davidson v. Westminister, (1982) 32 Cal.3d 197, 185 Cal.Rep. 252.
Stone v. State, (1980) 106 Cal.App. 3d 924, 165 Cal.Rep. 339.
Morgan v. District of Columbia, (1983) 468 A.2d 1306.
Warren v. District of Columbia, (1983) 444 A.2d 1.
Sapp v. Tallahassee, (1977) 348 So.2d 363, cert. denied 354 So.2d 985.
Keane v. Chicago, (1968) 98 ILL.App.2d 460, 240 N.E.2d 321.
Jamison v. Chicago, (1977) 48 ILL.App.3d 567.
Simpson's Food Fair v. Evansville, 272 N.E.2d 871.
Silver v. Minneapolis, (1969) 170 N.W.2d 206.
Wuetrich v. Delia, (1978) 155 N.J.Super. 324, 382 A.2d 929.
Chapman v. Philadelphia, (1981) 290 Pa.Super. 281, 434 A.2d 753.
Morris v. Musser, (1984) 84 Pa.Cmwth. 170, 478 A.2d 937.
Weiner v. Metropolitan Authority, and Shernov v. New York Transit Authority, (1982) 55 N.Y. 2d 175, 948 N.Y.S. 141.
Castle Rock v. Gonzalez, 2005 U.S. LEXIS 5214 (2005).


The Deputy might actually have a point.
 
I'm not saying thats good or bad thing.....I'm just saying.

[GreyGeek]

You nailed it, Phantom!

When police arrive after a 911 call it is usually  8 to 10 minutes later.  Often it can be up to an hour or more later, IF they come at all.   Most altercations are over within a minute and by the time another 7 minutes have passed brain death has occurred if the injured party is bleeding profusely.  The only thing police can do in that case is to take a report or arrest someone, and it isn't always the bad guy.  They don't even clean up the mess.

The real solution to this problem is to acquire a defensive weapon for home protection and train  with it to become efficient in its use.  Outside the home a CCW is needed.

[gsd]

Okay, I concede. Still, he should really reevaluate his morals and ethics if he feels a lawsuit was actually a decent thing to do.

[unfy]

GSD: ya gave up too quickly.

The officer showing up to the scene didn't necessarily have to protect anyone... so the whole thing of 'police dont have protect anyone' is completely moot.

He could have shown up, realized the situation was fubar and got out of harms way.

Or he could have shown up, and got taken by surprise -- bad things happened.  *THAT* is part of the risk of the job.

None of the above are the fault of the person who called 911 looking for help.

Now, baiting someone with a 911 call with intention of trapping the responders - yeah, that's evil.


Lets say that the officer wins.  Or that the judge even entertains the case.

If I found myself in any situation with any amount of unknowns - I wouldn't want to call 911 ever again.

Get into an accident, call 911, rescue crew shows up, a spark hits a fuel / air mixture and kills someone.  Now my fault cause i didn't know it was going to happen ?

Home invasion, shoot the invader, call 911 - tell them i shot a home invader and that i believed he was alone. Turns out the invader had a buddy in hiding and shoots the officers as they approach.  My fault ?

I'd rather risk it on my own than deal with possible extra law suits that 911 might now entail.