When Police Immunity Fails: The $7.7 Million East Cleveland Cruiser-Crash Verdict

Published April 18, 2019 · Ohio Appeals Courts · Verdicts & Settlements

When a police cruiser runs into you, the first thing the city's lawyers will say is that the officer was answering an emergency call and the city is immune. Very often they are right. But not always, and a decision from a Cleveland appeals court last month shows what happens when a jury hears the evidence and concludes that an officer's driving crossed the line from careless to reckless.

A 2 a.m. crash at East 140th and St. Clair

The case is Hunt v. East Cleveland, 2019-Ohio-1115, decided March 28, 2019, by the Eighth District Court of Appeals in Cuyahoga County.

According to the opinion, at about 2:00 a.m. on October 5, 2008, two East Cleveland officers were parked outside a bar when another officer radioed that he was following a possibly stolen motorcycle. According to testimony at trial, no one had asked them for help, but the two officers headed for the scene. As one of them, Officer Todd Carroscia, approached the intersection of East 140th Street and St. Clair Avenue, his cruiser slammed into the driver's side of a car driven by Charles Hunt. Mr. Hunt and his passenger, Marilyn Conard, were seriously injured.

The evidence at trial painted two very different pictures:

• The officers' account. Officer Carroscia testified that his lights and siren were on, that he had a green light, and that he was going 40 to 50 miles per hour, although he had told the department's investigator he was traveling 60 to 65. The other officer agreed that both cruisers were speeding on a stretch of St. Clair with a speed limit of 25 or 35 miles per hour.
• The plaintiffs' account. Mr. Hunt and Ms. Conard said they had a green light and never saw emergency lights or heard a siren. A man pumping gas at the corner station testified that the cruiser came up St. Clair at about 70 miles per hour with no lights or siren, and that the light facing St. Clair was red.
• The reconstruction. A Columbus police crash reconstructionist testified for the plaintiffs that the cruiser was going at least 70 miles per hour at impact.

Both cruisers had video equipment, but neither was recording. Officer Carroscia's driver's license was suspended at the time, though he testified he did not know it. The city's own emergency-driving policy required officers approaching an intersection, even on a green light, to slow to a safe speed and proceed with caution. And East Cleveland's former law director testified that she had recommended he be fired, because in her view he had driven recklessly at high speed for no good reason.

The verdict

In April 2017, a Cuyahoga County jury found for Mr. Hunt and Ms. Conard. It awarded Mr. Hunt $6,119,738 and Ms. Conard $1,590,442 in compensatory damages against the city and the officer, roughly $7.7 million together, plus $500,000 in punitive damages to each plaintiff against Officer Carroscia personally.

The city and the officer appealed, raising eight arguments, including that the trial should have been split into phases, that expert testimony about Mr. Hunt's drinking was improperly limited, that a juror's conduct tainted the trial, and that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence. The Eighth District rejected every one of them and affirmed the judgment.

How immunity works when a police car hits you

Ohio's political subdivision immunity law, R.C. Chapter 2744, starts from the premise that cities are not liable for injuries caused by their employees. But R.C. 2744.02(B)(1) makes cities liable when an employee negligently operates a motor vehicle in the course of the job. That is the general rule for city trucks, buses, and cruisers alike.

Police officers get an extra layer of protection. Under R.C. 2744.02(B)(1)(a), it is a full defense for the city that the officer was responding to an emergency call, unless the officer's driving was willful or wanton misconduct. The individual officer has his own immunity under R.C. 2744.03(A)(6), which disappears if he acted with malicious purpose, in bad faith, or in a wanton or reckless manner.

The appeals court explained that even assuming Officer Carroscia was on an emergency call, the city and the officer could still be liable if the jury found that he acted willfully, wantonly, or recklessly. The court reviewed the Ohio Supreme Court's definitions: wanton misconduct is essentially a failure to exercise any care when harm is highly probable; reckless conduct is a conscious disregard of a known or obvious risk that is substantially greater than ordinary negligence.

The jury had evidence on each point. The court listed it: high speed, a suspended license, no lights or siren according to some witnesses, an area with an open gas station and people leaving bars, and a red light. Add the officer's failure to follow department policies written to protect the public, and the court held there was competent, credible evidence to support the jury's finding. Where the testimony conflicted, it was the jury's job to decide whom to believe.

I have written before about how Ohio courts define "reckless" in emergency-vehicle cases, and about the limits of claims arising from police chases in the Dayton area. Hunt shows the other side of those cases: when the proof is there, immunity gives way.

What the verdict does and does not mean in dollars

Readers should understand a few limits that apply to every claim against a city. Under R.C. 2744.05, punitive damages cannot be awarded against a political subdivision, which is why the $500,000 punitive awards in Hunt ran only against the officer. The same statute requires insurance and other collateral benefits to be deducted from an award against a city; the appeals court in Hunt confirmed that the deduction is handled by the judge after trial, not argued to the jury. And except in wrongful-death cases, damages against a city for non-economic losses such as pain and suffering are limited to $250,000 per person, though there is no limit on actual economic losses like medical bills and lost wages.

Those rules make the individual officer's liability, and the proof of recklessness that opens it, especially important.

What this case teaches about proof

If you are hit by a police cruiser, fire truck, or other government vehicle, the case will turn on the same questions the Hunt jury answered:

• Speed. A reconstruction expert's calculation of speed at impact can contradict an officer's own estimate.
• Lights and siren. Independent witnesses, like the man at the gas pump, are crucial. Find them quickly.
• The intersection approach. Whether the officer slowed, stopped at a red light, or blew through it, and what the department's policy required.
• Video. Dash cameras and body cameras, and whether they were recording, matter. Nearby business cameras may also have captured the crash.
• The officer's record. Licensing, training, and discipline can bear on recklessness.

What this means for you

Immunity for police vehicle crashes in Ohio is real, but it is not absolute. When an officer's driving is reckless, the city and the officer can both be held responsible by a jury. The evidence that proves recklessness, especially video and independent witnesses, must be gathered early. Our page on claims against the government explains the deadlines and special rules, and our Dayton car accident practice handles crashes with government vehicles of every kind. For claims involving the condition of public roads, see my February post on potholes and road defects.