• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

No duty to protect and no duty to pay for damages

lockman

State Researcher
Joined
Aug 19, 2006
Messages
1,193
Location
Elgin, Illinois, USA
imported post

No duty to protect you. Now, no responsibillity to compensate for actual damages caused to your person or property by police actions. I don't know where to go with this one.:banghead:


edited out extra word.
 

Hawkflyer

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Messages
3,309
Location
Prince William County, Virginia, USA
imported post

It does not seem like too much for the state to cover the difference between what the guys homeowners policy will cover and the actual cost for repairs.

But then again this is what happens if you don't keep your house leashed and it runs out in traffic.

Regards
 

LEO 229

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Messages
7,606
Location
USA
imported post

I have never heard that before.

So if this guy did not have any insurance.... he would be out $60,000 for what the state did.
 

SFDoc

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2006
Messages
221
Location
Hopewell, Virginia, USA
imported post


I thought theLAW REAQUIRED the driver to MAINTAIN control of their vehicle at ALL TIMES LEO or not?? However, because this is the day and age of not taking responsibility for one’s actions why should anyone be suprised.

And before anyone starts on me about high speed driving, I have been through the EVOC course several times.:p
 

openryan

State Researcher
Joined
Apr 18, 2007
Messages
1,602
Location
, Indiana, USA
imported post

Are youkidding me?!?! This is ridiculous, saying that the officer was not grossly neglegent, and he was in emergency duty mode? Ha! What a crock this one is, so if you are only a little bit neglegent it is okay.

I don't know what the law is there, but I would say go after the trooper directly if you can't fight the department, even if he was in the scope of his job.

By the way, I dont know where it is elsewhere, but around here cops drive like they own the god damn road, on their cell phones, computers, donuts, etc... To say you have governmental immunity is a joke!

But, this may turn out like a lot of health insurance cases, they bs you at first, but after a couple of attempts and maybe a lawyer they finally pony up and pay you off, I hope this is what happens here, this man does not deserve to have his own insurance pay for this, and if they do, they should go after the department to recoup their losses.

I am fine with the man causing an accident, it very well may be one, but to not take responsibility for their actions is ridiculous.

I wonder what their insurance does cover?
 

Hawkflyer

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Messages
3,309
Location
Prince William County, Virginia, USA
imported post

What is interesting about this is that while the police have no specific duty to protect anyone or anything in particular, they do have a duty to protect property. Clearly driving your car into a mans house (no matter the cause) is NOT protecting the property in the community, and it should attach liability to the act.

I would bet that if this guys insurance company sued they would win. All insurance companies start off with "not my problem"

Regards
 

LEO 229

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Messages
7,606
Location
USA
imported post

SFDoc wrote:

I thought theLAW REAQUIRED the driver to MAINTAIN control of their vehicle at ALL TIMES LEO or not?? However, because this is the day and age of not taking responsibility for one’s actions why should anyone be suprised.

And before anyone starts on me about high speed driving, I have been through the EVOC course several times.:p

When you have your emergency equipment activated... you are permitted to disobey many state laws regarding speed, lights, signs, and traffic direction.

You are expectedto maintain control of the vehicle and not out-drive it too.
 

HankT

State Researcher
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
6,215
Location
Invisible Mode
imported post

LEO 229 wrote:
When you have your emergency equipment activated... you are permitted to disobey many state laws regarding speed, lights, signs, and traffic direction.

'You really shouldn't do that. You might kill somebody.'

:p
 

openryan

State Researcher
Joined
Apr 18, 2007
Messages
1,602
Location
, Indiana, USA
imported post

LEO 229 wrote:
When you have your emergency equipment activated... you are permitted to disobey many state laws regarding speed, lights, signs, and traffic direction.

You are expectedto maintain control of the vehicle and not out-drive it too.





Regarless, you still have a duty to be safe while doing so, I do not care how many whore house lights you have atop your carriage, you still need to be safe while doing so.

I could see if another drive pulled out or did not stop and caused an accident, but this man was in a HOUSE, houses do not move!

I hope they follow up on this story.
 

Toad

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2006
Messages
387
Location
, Virginia, USA
imported post

I do believe that I would be looking into an all out legal assault:
One against the state
One against the county’s BOS
One against the PD
One against the directly responsible officer.
Sure it would cost a hefty dime to actually carry out all of this but it doesn't cost much (considering what is at stake) to start the paper work and withdraw prior to any hearings.... especially after the media gets their hands on it. It is sad that one must waste the courts time to make things right when it should be handled correctly by default.
 

72Malibu

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Messages
392
Location
Near Charlottesville, Virginia, USA
imported post

Now, I'm not being trollish when I say this and I have the utmost respect for our LE community, but it seems almost like nowadays the LE community is doing more and more to alienate itself from the civilian community. It's a trend that disturbs me since I, (not having much interaction with LEOs to date) remember the positive, smiling, friendly public servant image portrayed to us of police officers when I was in school.

However, in defense of the LE community, I wonder if it's similar to how the 2A community is portrayed. I.e. more negative things making it into the mass media than positive.

Nevertheless, I'm always someone who gives people the benefit of the doubt. In the words of George W. Bush (paraphrased): "We have an old saying in Texas that goes: 'Fool me once, shame on...shame on ..... you'. 'Fool me twice'.....well, you can't get fooled again."

I hope the innocent homeowner gets some compensation for any and all damages. I can understand the permission to violate laws like speeding, signs and lights in the pursuit of justice, but I feel comfortable saying that because I think LEOs go thorugh special vehicle training that enables them to handle high-speed and dangerous situations. I would think that if a police officer, having this type of training should be held accountable not for the laws he broke that caused the crash (excessive speed, etc), but should absolutely be held accountable for losing control of the vehicle in a situation he was TRAINED and CERTIFIED to be able to handle. If his actions caused the cruiser to lose control, then he exceeded the boundaries of his training and used poor judement or NEGLIGENCE in his decision making. For that he AND the state he represents should be held accountable.
 

vt357

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 16, 2006
Messages
490
Location
Richmond, Virginia, USA
imported post

72Malibu wrote:
Now, I'm not being trollish when I say this and I have the utmost respect for our LE community, but it seems almost like nowadays the LE community is doing more and more to alienate itself from the civilian community. It's a trend that disturbs me since I, (not having much interaction with LEOs to date) remember the positive, smiling, friendly public servant image portrayed to us of police officers when I was in school.
However, in defense of the LE community, I wonder if it's similar to how the 2A community is portrayed. I.e. more negative things making it into the mass media than positive.

I actually think that LE isn't doing anything worse (in fact in some areas I think they have improved). The bad stuff is just being reported much more. There will always be bad apples in the bunch, but the difference is that the press and the public in general no longer have a good opinion of LE. They rarely report the good stories and jump all over a LEO that messes up.

That said, this insurance claim denial is bogus. I hope he sues because he will win. But I also hope he only sues for damages and not for millions of dollars - I hate how this country has become lawsuit happy.
 
Top