 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Gross v. Thompson3/4/2003
ion, is, as a practical matter, defeated. Police officers may justifiably think their own employment performance is being evaluated and consequently may decline to engage in pursuit when pursuit is indicated. It would seem, too, if criminals get the impression that by speeding away they can discourage pursuit, they will act on that impression and speed away. Pletan, 494 N.W.2d at 42.
In light of our ruling that Florell is entitled to official immunity, we conclude that the district court correctly determined that vicarious official immunity applies to the Minneapolis Police Department and the City of Minneapolis.
III.
Gray next argues that the district court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Breedlove, because a disputed fact remains as to whether Breedlove breached a common-law duty of care when he failed to notice Thompson speeding on Penn Avenue with his high beams on.
The driver of a car has a duty to operate the car with reasonable care under the circumstances so that the risk of riding in it is no greater than the risk assumed when the passenger entered the car. Olson v. Buskey, 220 Minn. 155, 157,19 N.W.2d 57, 58 (Minn. 1945). The driver's duty to exercise reasonable care includes the duty to maintain a reasonable lookout. Peterson v. Minneapolis St. Ry. Co., 236 Minn. 528, 531, 53 N.W.2d 817, 819 (Minn. 1952); Thompson v. Hill, 366 N.W.2d 628, 631 (Minn. App. 1985). Gray argues that whether Breedlove breached his duty to maintain a reasonable lookout constitutes a genuine issue of material fact that remains in dispute. But a driver proceeding through a green light is entitled to anticipate that cross traffic will stop at a red light. Goeden v. Thompson, 289 Minn. 293, 295, 184 N.W.2d 8, 9 (1971).
The undisputed facts establish that Breedlove was driving under the posted limit due to the road conditions. He looked both ways before proceeding on a green light into the intersection. While in the intersection, Breedlove looked south and saw Thompson's lights. But Thompson collided with Breedlove before Breedlove could react. The officers testified that there was no time for Breedlove to react to Thompson's car speeding through the red light on Penn Avenue. Patterson, the independent witness, also testified that Breedlove had no time to avoid colliding with Thompson because of Thompson's speed. By the time Thompson headed into the intersection, the police car's siren was off, so it warned neither Breedlove nor Patterson of the risk Thompson posed. Likewise, because of the police car's distance from the intersection and its location on the hill, the police car's lights also were not visible to Breedlove. Gray offers no evidence to the contrary, merely asserting, without evidentiary support, that Breedlove "should have had the time and ability" to react to the impending accident. We are mindful of the tragic injuries to Gray and her daughter caused by the collision. But the record before us supports the district court's conclusion that summary judgment is warranted by the law governing this case. Because the record does not contain any evidence that Breedlove breached his common-law duty of care, the district court did not err in entering summary judgment in favor of Breedlove and his mother.
Affirmed.
Page 1 2 3 4 Minnesota Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|