The Supreme Court of Mississippi found that a city was not liable for the death of a runaway female juvenile based on a beating by her boyfriend. City police had taken her into custody on a number of occasions, and the police department allegedly failed to properly investigate her claims she was having sex with an officer and by failing to apprehend her in a timely manner and return her to the custody or her parents or an appropriate agency. The city was immune from liability under a state tort claims act. The decision as to how to investigate the case or whether to investigate it was a discretionary function. A $1 million award in favor of the plaintiffs was reversed. City of Jackson, Mississippi v. Sandifer, Jr., #2011-CA-01063-SCT, 2013 Miss. Lexis 60.
     A California Highway Patrol officer, as well as the state, was immune from liability on a claim that he negligently lost or destroyed the information needed to identify an individual involved in an accident which injured the plaintiff, interfering with the ability to sue. Governmental immunity is provided by statute when the information is lost in the course of an official investigation. A $99,224.90 award to the plaintiff was therefore reversed on appeal, Strong v. State of California, #B225885, 2011 Cal. App. Lexis 1580, 201 Cal. App. 4th 1439 (2nd Dist.).
     Counties, cities, villages, and their employees were entitled to immunity under the Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act, 745 ILCS 10/1-101 et seq. on claims that they failed to respond to a caller's report that a driver's vehicle left the road and was currently in a ditch. The statute provides immunity on claims for failing to adequately provide "police protection services," and applies to claims concerning the failure to aid motorists who have gone off a road. DeSmet v. County of Rock Island, No. 100261, 848 N.E.2d 1030 (Ill. 2006). [N/R]
     Indiana Tort Claims Act did not provide governmental immunity to officer or city for the officer's purported negligent operation of his car against a red light while engaged in pursuing a suspect, resulting in injuries to another motorist. Patrick v. Miresso, No. 45803-0505-CV-223, 848 N.E.2d 1083 (Ind. 2006). [N/R]
     A city, its arresting officer, and a police dispatcher were all entitled to state agent immunity under Alabama state law for actions which resulted in a man's arrest under an outstanding warrant for another man with a similar name. The officer and dispatcher, in mistakenly determining that the arrestee was the individual sought under the warrant, were engaged in the exercise of judgment in the enforcement of criminal laws, and therefore were immune from liability under Ala. Code Sec. 6-5-338. Swan v. City of Hueytown, No. 1031058, 920 So. 2d 1075 (Ala. 2005). [N/R]
     City's police officers did not act in reckless disregard of cell phone owner's safety and rights in obtaining a warrant for his arrest on charges of making multiple phone call bomb threats to the local high school and police department based on incorrect information obtained from the phone company. City was therefore immune from liability under Mississippi state law. Phone company employee, in preparing requested information, transposed two numbers in computer entry seeking identity of the person owning the phone from which the bomb threats were made. City of Greenville v. Jones, No. 2003-CA-02640-SCT, 925 So. 2d 106 (Miss. 2006). [N/R]
     City was not liable for off-duty police officer's alleged use of excessive force in the course of an arrest while employed as a security guard by a private entity, whether the officer was acting in his official capacity as an officer or in his capacity as a private security guard. If he was acting on behalf of his private employer, he acted outside the scope of his employment for the city, whereas if he was acting in his official capacity, the city had governmental immunity under state law since the officer's alleged use of force amounted to intentional conduct which was outside a state statute's waiver of governmental immunity. Morgan v. City of Alvin, No. 01-02-01212, 175 S.W.3d 408 (Tex. App. 1st Dist. 2004). See also Schauer v. Morgan, 01-04-00142, 175 S.W.3d 397 (Tex. App. 1st Dist. 2005), ruling that the officer, as a city employee, had immunity from liability in the arrestee's claims against him individually, since the immunity granted to government employees under the Texas Tort Claims Act is not limited to actions carried out within the scope of their employment or in good faith. [N/R]
     Officer who did not act with malice towards arrestee who had violated laws against having alcohol on water district property was entitled to governmental immunity under the Mississippi Tort Claims Act, A.M.C. Sec. 11-46-7(2) for alleged injuries arrestee suffered from the force the officer used when the arrestee allegedly resisted arrest. Pearl River Valley Water Supply District v. Bridges, No. 2002-CA-01425-COA, 878 So.2d 1013 (Miss. App. 2004). [N/R]
     Police officers who responded to an emergency call from medical personnel who needed help in restraining a "combative and uncooperative" ambulance patient having convulsions and who allegedly injured him while handcuffing him after he attempted to bite one of them, were entitled to governmental immunity from liability under the Indiana Tort Claims Act, I.C. 34-13-3-3(8). The officers were enforcing the law at the time, despite not placing the patient under arrest, as they were attempting to prevent him from injuring himself or others at the time. Officers who assist emergency medical personnel under these circumstances are acting within the scope of governmental immunity for law enforcement purposes under the Act. Daggett v. Indiana State Police, No. 34A02-0401-CV-45, 812 N.E.2d 1151 (Ind. App. 2004). [N/R]
     Even if police officers acted willfully and wantonly in failing to rescue victims of a residential fire, they were protected against liability under Illinois law based on governmental immunity for discretionary actions under 745 ILCS 10/2-201. The officers, the court finds, had a policy decision to make in balancing their possible chance of success in rescuing the fire victims against the risk to their own safety. Fender v. Town of Cicero, 807 N.E.2d 606 (Ill. App. 1st Dist. 2004). [N/R]
     City was not liable, under Florida law, for man's shooting of his wife, despite alleged negligent failure of officer to follow-up on promise to "talk" to the shooter about his alleged threat to her. Officer's failure to act was not the cause of the injuries, and no special relationship existed which would waive governmental immunity for the officer's conduct. City of Ocala v. Graham, No.5D02-3208, 864 So. 2d 473 (Fla. App. Dist. 5 2004). [2004 LR May]
     Texas statute, T.C.A. Civil Practice and Remedies Code Secs. 101.021(1) and 101.062(b), which states that Tort Claims Act applied to claims against public entities arising out of a volunteer's action in the course of providing 911 service or response only when the action violates a statute or ordinance did not unambiguously waive governmental immunity for such claims, but instead appeared to be intention to restrict liability of those responding to 911 calls rather than creating further liability. City of Dayton v. Gates, #09-03-310 CV, 126 S.W.3d 288 (Tex. App., Beaumont 2004). [N/R]
     County could not be held liable under Tennessee state law for a deputy's alleged use of excessive force in carrying out an arrest. The plaintiff's "negligence" claims were actually claims for intentional wrongful conduct for which a county has governmental immunity under the state's Governmental Tort Liability Act, T.C.A. Sec. 29-20-205(2). Brooks v. Sevier County, 279 F. Supp. 2d 954 (E.D. Tenn. 2003). [N/R]
      Police officers' failure to arrest minor intoxicated motorist results in $1.14 million award against officers and municipality for the subsequent death of his passenger in a vehicle accident. Intermediate Illinois appeals court rules that officers, once they had grounds to believe minor was violating state "zero tolerance" law, had no discretion but to enforce the law, preventing him from driving after having consumed alcohol. Their "willful and wanton" failure to do so placed the case outside of the immunity normally granted from liability for failure to make an arrest. Ozik v. Gramins, #01-00-3280, ___ N.E.2d __, 2003 Ill. App. Lexis 846. [2003 LR Aug]
    Mississippi Supreme Court upholds finding of liability of city for death of bystander killed when her vehicle was hit by a car driven by a check forgery suspect who was fleeing from police pursuit through a residential neighborhood. Court rules that officers acted in reckless disregard for the safety of others in conducting the pursuit, and were therefore not entitled to governmental immunity when they did not know whether the pursued suspect had committed a felony or a misdemeanor, violating the department's own order concerning the beginning of pursuits. City of Jackson v. Brister, No. 2001-CA-01393-SCT, 838 So. 2d 274 (Miss. 2003). [2003 LR Jun]
     Wife awarded $30,000 against Tennessee county for failing to protect her against her estranged husband who allegedly burned her home when deputies failed to arrest him for violating a protection order while divorce proceedings were pending. Tennessee statute waiving governmental immunity for county, however, barred the additional award, by the trial court, of $130,000 in damages against two deputy sheriff's. Matthews v. Pickett County, Tennessee, No. 00-6644, 46 Fed. Appx. 261 (6th Cir. 2002). [2003 LR Feb.]
      Arrestee's claim that an officer intentionally stomped on his leg and that officers acted wantonly was not sufficient to claim conduct, under Wisconsin law, W.S.A. 893.80(4), that invoked an exception to governmental immunity for "malicious acts" when arrestee's claim was for negligence and his proposed factual findings did not show that officers were motivated by ill will. Wilson v. City of Milwaukee, 138 F. Supp. 2d 1126 (E.D. Wis. 2001). [N/R]
      Officer working for water supply district would not be entitled to governmental immunity under Mississippi Tort Claims Act, Secs 11-46-5(2), 11-46-7(2) if he acted with malice in using excessive force in effecting arrest of plaintiff for drunkenness and resisting arrest on district property. Bridges v. Pearl River Valley Water Supply District, No. 2000-CA-00128-SCT, 793 So. 2d 584 (Miss. 2001). [N/R]
      347:164 Under Colorado state law, a municipality is not liable for the willful and wanton actions of its police officers; statute waives immunity for individual employees for such actions, but says nothing about waiving governmental immunity for public entities. Ramos v. City of Pueblo, No. 99CA2299, 28 P.2d 979 (Colo. App. 2001).
     331:106 Officer and city were not entitled to immunity for injuries to pedestrian struck by officer's vehicle as he followed speeding motor vehicle; officer's actions did not qualify as "pursuit" as speeding motor vehicle was not attempting to flee officer. Torres v. City of Perth Amboy, 748 A.2d 125 (N.J. Super. A.D. 2000).
     327:36 City was not immune, under West Virginia statute, from liability for injuries motorist suffered, allegedly caused by officer's parking of his vehicle in a place hazardous to oncoming traffic. Westfall v. City of Dunbar, 517 S.E.2d 479 (W. Va. 1999).
     323:173 California appeals court rules that governmental immunity did not apply to failure to provide metal detectors in courthouse; surviving family of woman killed by her ex-husband in courthouse lobby could possibly sue county for failure to protect her against foreseeable risk of violence. Zelig v. County of Los Angeles, 86 Cal.Rptr.2d 693 (Cal. App. 1999).
     {N/R} City failed to show, as a matter of law, that it had not waived its governmental immunity for alleged false arrest, malicious prosecution and other claims when it bought an insurance policy arguably providing coverage for such wrongdoing. Houpe v. City of Statesville, No. COA96- 1272, 497 S.E.2d 82 (N.C. App. 1998).
     285:133 County and sheriff's deputies were not entitled to governmental immunity, under Michigan law, on false arrest and malicious prosecution claims brought by concertgoers arrested by deputies serving as crowd control at private music theater; deputies, supplied to the theater by the county pursuant to contract, were essentially acting as private security guards, rather than carrying out a law enforcement function Pardon v. Finkel, 540 NW2d 774 (Mich App. 1995). [Cross-reference: Off- Duty/Color of Law]
     281:68 Governmental immunity was not available as a defense to deputies who allegedly assaulted and battered father while assisting state agency in removing children from his home; governmental immunity under Michigan state law does not apply to intentional misconduct Burns v. Malak, 897 F.Supp. 985 (E.D. Mich 1995). [Cross-reference: Assault and Battery: Physical]
     {N/R} State statute providing governmental immunity barred municipal liability for injuries to bystanders during city sponsored fireworks display at which police handled spectator seating McClellan v. City of Chicago Heights, 61 F.3d 577 (7th Cir. 1995).
     268:59 Allegation that officer declined to break into apartment to rescue minor girl from intruder who was raping her, despite her mother's pleas to do so, because he did not want to be liable for property damage stated claim against officer for willful and wanton negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and gender discrimination Doe v. Calumet City, 161 Ill 2d 374, 641 N.E.2d 498 (1994).
     270:86 City and police department were entitled to governmental immunity under Pennsylvania state law for death of one child and injury to another allegedly caused by failure of school crossing guard to report for duty; crossing guard was not a "traffic control" device fitting within an exception to the immunity Smith v. City of Chester, 851 F.Supp. 656 (E.D.Pa 1994).
     274:151 Deputy sheriff did not act with gross negligence in pursuing, but not attempting to stop, vehicle in which he believed gunman was fleeing; plaintiff's failure to plead that county had waived immunity by purchasing liability insurance barred claim against county under N.C. law Clark v. Burke County, 450 S.E.2d 747 (N.C. App. 1994).
     {N/R} Officer's failure to offer motorist a ride home after ordering driver not to drive car after traffic stop was not willful or wanton conduct required to abrogate governmental immunity under Colorado statute; officer and town were not liable for later assault on motorist walking home Jarvis v. Deyoe, 892 P.2d 398 (Colo App. 1994).
     Officer's decision to handcuff arrestee behind his back was a discretionary one, entitling officers and city to governmental immunity, Nevada Supreme Court rules Maturi v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Dept, 871 P.2d 932 (Nev 1994).
     Officer searching for reported ordinance violator was engaged in law enforcement and entitled to governmental immunity under Connecticut law for traffic accident which occurred during the search Lombardi v. City of Groton, 26 Conn App. 157, 599 A.2d 388 (1991).