More Than Testimony Is Needed to Establish an Emergency Call for Immunity Purposes

A Cleveland police officer was stopped at a stop light. Without turning on his lights and sirens, he checked for oncoming traffic and advanced through the intersection. The officer did not see the plaintiff’s vehicle and collided with it, causing injury. The officer testified that he was responding to an accident scene and, thus, argued that he was engaged in an emergency call, which may have restored the City’s immunity. The City did not include dispatch records with its summary judgment motion to support his testimony. In these circumstances, the court found that the officer’s testimony was insufficient evidence to overcome a genuine issue of material fact. The court likewise found that the facts presented a genuine issue of material facts as to whether the officer acted recklessly or wantonly. 

The lesson from this case is that if the officer does not engage their lights and sirens, then documentary evidence of the emergency call must be included in the dispositive motion, even when there is no evidence to contradict the officer’s testimony. 

_{Case Law Alerts, 2nd Quarter, April 2024 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. Copyright © 2024 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.}