 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Lemonia v. Lafayette Parish Consolidated Government2/2/2005
standard of care applicable to emergency vehicles. In this case, the standard of care applicable to the police officer is one of "reckless disregard." See Lenard v. Dilley, 2001-1522 (La. 01/15/02), 805 So.2d 175 at 180 wherein the Supreme Court held that " f, and only if, an emergency vehicle driver's actions fit into subsections A, B, and C of La.R.S. 32:24, will an emergency vehicle driver be held liable only for actions which constitutes reckless disregard of the safety of others." "Reckless disregard" connotes conduct more sever than negligence. According to Lenard, "reckless disregard" is, in effect, "gross negligence" and "gross negligence" is defined as "the want of even slight care and diligence." Id. at 180.
Subsection A of La.R.S. 32:24 requires that the emergency vehicle be authorized and the driver must be responding to an emergency call, or in pursuit of an actual or suspected violator of the law, or returning from a fire alarm. In this case, there is no dispute that Officer Moore was in fact in pursuit of a stolen vehicle; thus, the requirements of Section A are met.
Section B of La.R.S. 32:24 requires that the accident in question must arise out of the emergency vehicle's parking or standing, or proceeding past a red or stop signal or stop sign, or exceeding the maximum speed limits, or moving or turning against the normal flow of traffic. Here, there is no dispute that Officer Moore was traveling at a rate above the posted speed limit, thus, the requirements of Section B are met.
Section C of La.R.S. 32:24 requires that the emergency vehicle must make use of audible or visual signals sufficient to warn motorists of their approach. All of the testimony, save that of Savoy, supports Officer Moore's assertion that he was using his lights and sirens; thus, the requirements of Section C are met.
Since all of the requirements of La.R.S. 32:24 are met, the plaintiffs must prove that Officer Moore's conduct constituted reckless disregard for the safety of others.
Officer Moore's testimony that Savoy's vehicle had started to pull out into the intersection is supported by the accident report, photographs of the scene of the accident, and the prior testimony of Officer Comeaux. Officer Moore testified that he slowed down when coming over the railroad tracks and that he tried to take evasive action to avoid the collision. The trial court was well within its authority to accept the testimony of Officer Moore over that of Savoy and we find no manifest error in its so doing. The finding of no liability on the part of Lafayette Consolidated Government is supported by the law and the evidence.
With respect to Lemonia's claim for property damages, it is important to note that she did not appear in court for the trial and her claim was disposed of by involuntary dismissal. The only evidence of her ownership of the vehicle was Savoy's testimony and her being listed as owner on the police report for the subject accident. Savoy further testified that he spent $60.00 to put a new fender on the car and that it was still driveable. Savoy also testified that he was the only one to spend any money fixing the car. Again, even if it is accepted that Lemonia proved ownership, she would still have to prove "reckless" disregard and this hasn't been done.
Decree
Our ultimate conclusion is that there has been no showing of error on the part of the trial court; therefore, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Costs of this appeal are assessed against Plaintiffs-Appellants.
AFFIRMED.
Page 1 2 Louisiana Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|