Cop sues 911 caller after being injured on the job.

[fgalkin]

http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?secti ... id=9207650

HOUSTON (KTRK) -- It's something you would probably least expect after calling 9-1-1 during an emergency -- a lawsuit. If a deputy was hurt, would you be financially responsible?


A deputy is now suing a woman who called for help during an emergency. It all stems from a deputy-involved shooting that happened in Katy last year.

The deputy says he was injured when she made that call from her subdivision. In this lawsuit, he claims the homeowner failed to adequately warn 9-1-1 of the dangerous situation he was walking into.

The lawsuit just filed in Harris County is raising some eyebrows.

Sheriff's deputy Brady Pullen is suing a woman named Camina Figueroa after a 9-1-1 call the deputy responded to at Figueroa's Katy home back in December.

The lawsuit claims Pullen was violently and physically attacked by a man who'd allegedly been using bath salts as a drug for several days.

"Look, it's unprecedented" Harris County Sheriff Adrian Garcia said. "So we're allowing our legal staff to manage this case and we'll see where it takes us."

Sheriff Garcia wouldn't say much about Pullen's civil lawsuit but called the filing by his deputy unprecedented.

In the court documents, Pullen alleges Figueroa was negligent because she knew the man's mental state rendered him a danger to others.

Pullen says he suffered a broken nose, concussion, lacerations and bruises when the man in Figueroa's house attacked him. That man was ultimately shot and killed after investigators say he reached for Pullen's gun.

The deputy's Austin-based attorney told me his team's operating under the theory that if someone is injured due to a homeowner or renter's failure to warn of dangerous circumstances, then you have a right to sue.

"The deputy should know, if it's a 9-1-1 call, the deputy has to know it is a dangerous situation," KTRK legal analyst Joel Androphy said.

Androphy calls Deputy Pullen's lawsuit frivolous.

"It sends a bad message out there. And if this lawsuit succeeds, it basically shuts down 9-1-1 calls to some degree, because people will be afraid if they make the call they are going to get sued. And the sheriff should not condone this type of action," Androphy said.

So far, Figueroa has not responded to our requests for comment.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Borgholio]

*headdesk* Only in America...

[Zaune]

Hard to know who to sympathise with here. I realise a police officer has to accept the risk of personal injury as an occupational hazard, but reading between the lines, it sounds like the guy turned up to this incident expecting a simple domestic dispute and was caught unprepared. If I were in his position, I might feel just a little bit vexed at having been denied vitally important need-to-know information like the fact that the suspect was tripping balls on bath salts.

[Borgholio]

I think it's unreasonable for a caller to give the entire background history of an incident on the phone. Just saying she's in danger should be enough. And being a cop, danger is part of the job. He should be prepared for this sort of thing to happen eventually.

[Mr Bean]

I think it's unreasonable for a caller to give the entire background history of an incident on the phone. Just saying she's in danger should be enough. And being a cop, danger is part of the job. He should be prepared for this sort of thing to happen eventually.

If the person your calling for help with is trippling balls on drugs, has a gun or is dual wielding chainsaws it should be mentioned to the police.
But suing her? No that needs to be tossed out but this does point to a flaw in the law if there nothing to cover this already besides a civil suit.

[Thanas]

Doesn't insurance cover the cop's costs? I mean, they must have some kind of health insurance, right?

[Zaune]

They probably cut back on their policy so they could afford a new armoured car or something.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Doesn't insurance cover the cop's costs? I mean, they must have some kind of health insurance, right?

Yes, I believe they have access to workers compensation insurance and their own insurance plans.

Hopefully this claim is thrown out.

[Napoleon the Clown]

This is among the more absurd lawsuits I've heard of. I would think that an officer responding to any sort of violent situation, be it a fairly run-of-the-mill domestic disturbance or an armed robbery should expect the risk of being attacked. Hopefully this case gets tossed and the officer suing the woman has to pay for all the legal fees.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Bluntly, there is no Duty of Care toward the officers. It is the other way around. The person making the call is in danger, and may not have time nor for that matter the wherewithal to mention that the person they are in danger from is tripping balls on bath salts, or even know what the person is on.

There is an assumption of risk in being a police officer, and while their benefits should be a hell of a lot better than they are, the victims of crime should not be held liable for outcomes.

[Dartzap]

beeb

Norfolk police officer sues garage after trip on 999 call

A police officer is suing a petrol station owner after apparently tripping on a kerb on his property when called to reports of a suspected break-in.
PC Kelly Jones, 33, says she injured her leg and wrist at the filling station in Thetford, Norfolk, on 25 August last year.

She was not available for comment. Petrol station owner Steve Jones said he found the case "shocking".

Police said the claim appeared to be "instigated privately" by the officer.

Mr Jones said PC Jones tripped and fell and that he helped her up, but did not think she was hurt.
A letter to the business from solicitor Pattinson Brewer states PC Jones went to the Nunns Bridges garage at 00:20 BST.

'Unaware of step'

It said she went towards a gap in the fencing near a jet wash area in order to access the rear of the premises.

She did not know there was a section of high kerbing and tripped and fell.

PC Jones injured her left leg and right wrist and went to the West Suffolk Hospital, the letter added.

The claim alleges the petrol station was at fault for failing to ensure PC Jones was "reasonably safe", making no attempt to light the area or warn her about the step.
The letter also alleges the business failed to display any warning signs or carry out a risk assessment.

Mr Jones said he did not think he could have done any more to make things safe for the officer.

"I think the kerb was fairly visible - as visible as any kerbs on the road she had already walked over to get here," he said.
"When I got this letter I was anxious and worried.

"It's left a sour taste in my mouth.

"Times are quite hard for the industry and it seems everywhere we turn someone wants a piece of us - whether it's rates people, credit card companies, shoplifters, or people driving off without paying.

"This is the final straw."
'Not common'

Paul Ridgway, chairman of the Norfolk Police Federation, said it had been made aware of the incident soon after it happened.

He said regardless of the federation's view on any member's claim, a claim is forwarded to a solicitor to see whether there is any merit in it.

He added: "All members of the public, regardless of what profession, can claim litigation against people and against private firms - that's why everyone has insurance.
"It's not common, I appreciate that, but the claim has come in and we've honoured the officer's wishes by putting it through to the solicitor."

Norfolk Police said it had been unaware of the claim, adding: "We have a duty of care to any officer injured whilst on duty, to support their continued health and well-being and fitness to return to work.

"Officers can, in addition, receive further support from their staff association, as well as pursuing private treatment."

Similar, but this one was known to be a um....repeat offender. Made the news for a while.

[Gaidin]

I say quid pro quo if the courts are stupid enough to let this case stand. Let's throw out the precedent that keeps us from holding cops responsible for not being able to help whoever called 911.

[Purple]

Random question. What is the legal standing on using bath salts to get high? Because while I see this whole situation as idiotic I feel that a case might be made that at the very least the caller was in the wrong in that if a person has been abusing bath salts as a drug for several days you are supposed to report them as a junky on day one and not wait until they become violent. As in that might be something that his lawyers would aim at.

[loomer]

Legal, Purple. That's the entire point of 'bath salts'. Further, that's a retarded argument to even suggest. You don't report someone 'as a junky'. It's not illegal to be a junkie - it's only illegal to be in possession of banned items or to be using said items, and even then while it's sometimes an offence not to report an offender, you have to have a reasonable suspicion of illegal activity in those jurisdictions.

[Purple]

Legal, Purple. That's the entire point of 'bath salts'.

I figured that it might be illegal to be high on them thou. Just like in some places it is illegal to say be drunk. You have to remember that I am not an American so I hardly know your legislature. I am honestly surprised thou that apparently it's ok to be high just as long as it is not done by using specific banned chemicals. That's kind of like saying it's ok to drink and drive as long as the drink is not one from a specific list. But to each his own.

Further, that's a retarded argument to even suggest. You don't report someone 'as a junky'. It's not illegal to be a junkie - it's only illegal to be in possession of banned items or to be using said items, and even then while it's sometimes an offence not to report an offender, you have to have a reasonable suspicion of illegal activity in those jurisdictions.

That is why I am bloody asking. The guy was high on stuff. Hence I asked if being high on stuff on its own is illegal and if in that case the officer could get revenge by suing the caller on the grounds of not reporting a crime. Since you know, someone being high for days bloody well constitutes something you are bloody going to notice and have "reasonable suspicion" about. I figured that saying "calling in a junkie" would naturally translates to this. And that I could thus rely on other peoples common sense to not make me write up a bloody paragraph. Do I really need to bloody spell these things out? Apparently yes. Every time.

[loomer]

Legal, Purple. That's the entire point of 'bath salts'.

I figured that it might be illegal to be high on them thou. Just like in some places it is illegal to say be drunk. You have to remember that I am not an American so I hardly know your legislature. I am honestly surprised thou that apparently it's ok to be high just as long as it is not done by using specific banned chemicals. That's kind of like saying it's ok to drink and drive as long as the drink is not one from a specific list. But to each his own.

Further, that's a retarded argument to even suggest. You don't report someone 'as a junky'. It's not illegal to be a junkie - it's only illegal to be in possession of banned items or to be using said items, and even then while it's sometimes an offence not to report an offender, you have to have a reasonable suspicion of illegal activity in those jurisdictions.

That is why I am bloody asking. The guy was high on stuff. Hence I asked if being high on stuff on its own is illegal and if in that case the officer could get revenge by suing the caller on the grounds of not reporting a crime. Since you know, someone being high for days bloody well constitutes something you are bloody going to notice and have "reasonable suspicion" about. I figured that saying "calling in a junkie" would naturally translates to this. And that I could thus rely on other peoples common sense to not make me write up a bloody paragraph. Do I really need to bloody spell these things out? Apparently yes. Every time.

In the majority of countries, Purple, it is entirely legal to be high as a goddamn kite so long as your drug of choice isn't illegal and you don't do certain things (typically, driving or being a public nuisance). I am not an American, by the way. He also can't 'sue the caller' on the grounds of not reporting a crime. That would be a criminal charge, not a civil lawsuit. There is an important distinction.

[Purple]

In the majority of countries, Purple, it is entirely legal to be high as a goddamn kite so long as your drug of choice isn't illegal and you don't do certain things (typically, driving or being a public nuisance). I am not an American, by the way. He also can't 'sue the caller' on the grounds of not reporting a crime. That would be a criminal charge, not a civil lawsuit. There is an important distinction.

As a police officer thou he would likely be able to start or encourage the starting off a criminal investigation on such a matter if it were applicable.

[Kitsune]

Hard to know who to sympathise with here. I realise a police officer has to accept the risk of personal injury as an occupational hazard, but reading between the lines, it sounds like the guy turned up to this incident expecting a simple domestic dispute and was caught unprepared. If I were in his position, I might feel just a little bit vexed at having been denied vitally important need-to-know information like the fact that the suspect was tripping balls on bath salts.

"Simple Domestics" are often the worst calls you can be called on

[Ahriman238]

Bluntly, there is no Duty of Care toward the officers. It is the other way around. The person making the call is in danger, and may not have time nor for that matter the wherewithal to mention that the person they are in danger from is tripping balls on bath salts, or even know what the person is on.

There is an assumption of risk in being a police officer, and while their benefits should be a hell of a lot better than they are, the victims of crime should not be held liable for outcomes.

Up here (New England) we call this the Firefighter's Rule. If you call the government for help, lacking malicious intent, you are not liable for harm they recieve in the act of saving your life. The middle part is the essential bit, if you call 911 with the intent purpose of ambushing and harming would-be rescuers (it happens, sadly) you are absolutely 100% liable.