A reckless high-speed police pursuit that stretched across two counties resulted in the death of an elderly couple from Lawrenceville.
Johns Creek officers initially tried to stop 47-year-old Larry Thomas for a routine traffic violation. Rather than pull over, Mr. Thomas accelerated in an attempt to evade authorities. He fled into Norcross in neighboring Gwinnett County, as officers continued the chase. There, at the intersection of Jay Bird Alley and Peachtree Parkway, Mr. Thomas smashed into a vehicle carrying 77-year-old Kryzysztof Krawczynski and 78-year-old Elzbieta Gurtler-Krawczynski.
Mr. Thomas was taken into custody along with his son, 18-year-old Jesse Thomas, who was a passenger in the car. Both gentlemen now face a litany of charges, including vehicular homicide, drug trafficking, DUI, and possessing a firearm while committing a felony.
First Party Police Chase Liability
The above incident sadly fits the profile of the approximately 5,000 deadly police chases that have occurred since 1979: a suspect that was pursued following a traffic violation and subsequently killed an innocent bystander, or, in this case, bystanders, in a vehicle crash.
Police chases often involve foreseeability issues, since the officers generally did not cause the crash. Georgia follows the “ambit of risk” rule in these cases, which basically says that defendants owe a duty of reasonable care to anyone within the zone of danger, or any motorists who could be harmed by their negligence.
There are basically two ways to prove negligence in these cases. First, some departments have written policies regarding chases; for example, such pursuits may be prohibited unless the suspect is known to be dangerous at the time. In the above example, the officers did not know Mr. Thomas’ criminal background until the Krawczynskis were dead. There may also be a question of extreme recklessness; for example, a high-speed chase through a crowded urban area during rush hour.
Third Party Police Chase Liability
According to respondeat superior, the employer is responsible for the negligent actions of its employees. The theory is that the employer provided the vehicle or other instrument and also put the employee in a position where damage could occur, and so the employer should be legally responsible for damages.
To establish third party employer liability, the plaintiff must prove several factors, by a preponderance of the evidence:
- Employee: Even if a worker is an “independent contractor” or “intern” for tax purposes, that same worker is probably an “employee” for negligence purposes. Most courts look to the degree of control that an employer exercises over employee.
- Scope of Employment: This phrase is also broadly interpreted to include any activity that benefits the employer in any way.
One of the only defenses to respondeat superior is that the employee’s action or inaction was flagrantly against the rules, such as theft of a vehicle from the motor pool.
The tortfeasor (negligent driver) may not be the only party responsible for the plaintiff’s damages. For a free consultation with a Fayetteville attorney who is committed to maximum recovery, contact the Wade Law Office. An attorney can arrange for victims to receive ongoing medical care, even if they have no money and no insurance.
