AELE LAW LIBRARY OF CASE SUMMARIES:
Civil Liability of
Law Enforcement Agencies & Personnel
Back to list of subjects Back to Legal Publications Menu
Police Plaintiffs: Training Injuries
Monthly Law
Journal Article: Legal
Aspects of Training Injuries -- Part One, 2007 (8) AELE Mo. L. J. 201.
Monthly Law Journal Article: Legal Aspects of Training
Injuries -- Part Two, 2007 (9) AELE Mo. L. J. 201.
The Washington State Patrol appealed a
trial court's denial of its motion for summary judgment in a lawsuit brought by
a trooper for alleged deliberately intentional infliction of "certain
injury" from being shot with a Taser in the dart mode during training. An
intermediate state appeals court, finding that the plaintiff had presented a
genuine issue of material fact on his claim that the defendant intentionally
inflicted "certain injury," upheld the denial of summary judgment and
remanded the case for trial. The Taser exposure caused the plaintiff instant
temporary pain, discomfort, trouble breathing, and incapacitation. He was later
diagnosed with a fracture in his vertebrae and a "bulged disc." The
court said that the description, by the person responsible for developing the
training program, of the Taser's "most typical effect's, together with the
Taser manufacturer's warning that Taser probes cause "wounds," were
sufficient evidence of "certain injury" to create a material issue of
fact as to that claim allowing a lawsuit despite the providing of workers'
compensation benefits. Under state law, workers' compensation immunity from an
injury lawsuit does not apply if an employer knows of and willfully disregarded
certain injury. This exception does not depend, the court ruled, on the
severity of the initial injury that an employer deliberately causes in
disregard of its knowledge that its action will always produce this
"certain injury." Whether the defendant willfully disregarded that
injury would occur was a question of fact for the factfinder. Taken in the
light most favorable to the plaintiff, the evidence submitted could be
interpreted as showing that the employer knew that the mandatory Taser training
would certainly cause the injuries of the probes inflicting wounds and the
exposure to an electrical current, yet disregarded this by still requiring the
training. Michelbrink v. Wash. State Patrol, #44035-1-II, 2014 Wash. App. Lexis
973.
A deputy sheriff suffered vertebral compression
fractures during a training exercise in which he was voluntarily exposed to an
ECW. He sued TASER International alleging the firm had failed to adequately
warn him of the risk of compression fractures. The District Court found, as a
matter of law, the warnings were adequate. The Court of Appeals affirmed,
finding that the manufacturer's warning regarding potential vertebral fractures
was accurate, clear, consistent, and sufficiently forceful. Kandt v. Taser
Int'l, Inc., #12-3041-cv, 2013 U.S. App. Lexis 11143, 2013 WL 2395999 (2nd
Cir.). For more on the facts of the case, see the prior decision Kandt v. Taser
Int'l, Inc., #5:09-CV-0507, 2012 U.S. Dist. Lexis 96024 (N.D.N.Y.).
A state trooper sued the manufacturer of a Taser,
claiming that it had failed to provide warnings of an alleged risk that
exposure to it could cause fractures, resulting in him suffering a fractured
spine during a training exercise. A trial court did not abuse its discretion in
excluding expert witness testimony by the trooper's treating physician that his
injury was caused by exposure to the Taser. The doctor's opinion regarding the
cause of the injury was "unreliable" because a spinal compression
fracture is not the type of injury that ordinarily results from a Taser shock,
and the doctor did not show that his opinion that such a shock could cause this
kind of injury was testable. In the absence of admissible expert medical
witness testimony on causation, the defendant manufacturer was entitled to
summary judgment. Wilson v. Taser International, Inc., No. 08-13810, 2008 U.S.
App. Lexis 25252 (Unpub. 11th Cir.).
City of New York was not entitled to dismissal of
police officer's lawsuit claiming that she suffered injuries during a training
seminar when she claimed that she was not given necessary safety equipment to
protect her from recognized hazards of the exercise in which she was asked to
participate. Singleton v. City of New York, No. 9640/06, 2006 N.Y. Misc. Lexis
2928 (Sup., Kings County). [N/R]
Police officer who suffered eye injury during
"live fire" training exercise could not recover damages on the basis
of alleged violation of his civil rights because of the police chief's decision
to order officers to wear their riot helmets during the exercise, instead of
specially designed face masks. Moore v. Guthrie, No. 04-1435, 2006 U.S. App.
Lexis 4171 (10th Cir.). [2006 LR Apr]
Deputy sheriff was acting within the scope of his
employment when he injured fellow deputy's knee during practice of a
"common Peroneal" maneuver in a training class. Sheriff was therefore
vicariously liable for the injury. Court finds $150,000 was appropriate damage
award for deputy who required major reconstructive knee surgery, but was able
to resume his duties. Court also upholds $25,000 award to deputy's wife for
loss of consortium, when she was on bed rest while pregnant when deputy was
unable to help with many household chores since he was on crutches and had
limited mobility. Albert v. Farm Bureau Insurance Company, No. CA. 05-352, 916
So. 2d 1238 (La. App. 3d Cir. 2005). [N/R]
Enrollee in community college class intended as
police training could not recover damages for injuries suffered during role
playing takedown maneuver exercises on the basis of alleged negligence by the
college and its instructors. As the risk of injury was inherent in the nature
of the exercises and "obvious," he assumed the risk of injury and
could not recover damages in the absence of intentional injury or reckless
conduct. Saville v. Sierra College, No C047923, 2005 Cal. App. Lexis 1660 (Cal.
App.). [2005 LR Dec]
Neither District of Columbia nor physicians at
police medical clinic were liable for injuries officer allegedly suffered
during "attack exercise" utilizing baton, which was part of his
training. Feirson v. District of Columbia, No. CIV.A. 01-0905, 362 F. Supp. 2d
244 (D.D.C. 2005). [N/R]
Police officer was not acting within the scope of
his employment when he allegedly injured a deputy sheriff at a defensive
tactics training program by placing him in a neck restraint, causing him to
fall. He was therefore not entitled to defense and indemnification by the
county which employed him in a personal injury lawsuit filed against him by the
deputy. Riehle v. County of Cattaraugus, 794 N.Y.S.2d 186 (A.D. 4th Dept.
2005). [N/R]
Officer's claims for personal injuries she
suffered while participating in a certified training course were barred, in
California, under firefighter's rule and her assumption of the risk that she
would be injured. Hamilton v. Martinelli & Assoc., #E031683, 110
Cal.App.4th 1012, 2 Cal.Rptr.3d 168, 2003 Cal. App. Lexis 1114 (4th App. Dist.
2003). [2004 LR May]
Operation of a police training school by a
village was a "proprietary function" imposing the same duty of care
and same liability as a private individual or institution would have had while
engaging in the same activity. Municipality, school, and school personnel,
including director and commanding officer were not entitled to governmental
immunity under New York law from liability for trainee's injuries during
firearms training exercise. Lemery v. Village of Cambridge, 736 N.Y.S.2d 503
(A.D. 2002). [2002 LR May]
Police officer could not bring common law
negligence lawsuit against employing city based on injuries he suffered during
a motorcycle training course, since he was performing his official duties at
the time and received salary and medical benefits under the General Municipal
Law Sec. 207-c. Brady v. City of New Rochelle, 744 N.Y.S. 2d 494 (A.D. 2002).
[N/R]
306:90 City and officer who allegedly hit another
officer during baton training exercise, resulting in disabling injury, liable
for $2.35 million in damages; suit claimed negligent supervision by city.
Hamilton v. City of Brawley, Cal. Imperial County Super. Ct., No. 84701, Nov.
24, 1997, 41 ATLA L. Rptr. 94 (April 1998).