Supreme Court rules Farmington may be sued
Ruling says officers immune from suit in death of two women
By PAULA BARR
Daily Journal Staff Writer
Daily Journal Staff Writer
Two women were killed after their vehicle was struck by a Farmington patrol car that was responding to a call involving a robbery. Two children and the officer who was driving the patrol car were injured. - Teresa Ressel / Daily Journal
The police officer whose patrol car crashed into a civilian vehicle during a high-speed chase cannot be held liable for the death of two women or injuries to two children in the car, the Missouri Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday. Nor can the family of Monica Clark, Janice Moutray and Lakoda and Rodney Clark sue the other two officers in the chase.
However, the city can be held responsible because it does not enjoy the same protection as the officers, the Court ruled in an unanimous decision in the case of Southers et al versus the City of Farmington et al. Judge Mary Russell wrote the opinion.
“The court said the three individual officers cannot be personally liable,” said Matthew J. Devoti, one of the attorneys for family members Debra Southers, Terry Larson and Kathleen Hammett. “The Court said they are immune from suit while performing the duties of the office. They also said the city can be sued because the facts suggest negligence. The city can be held responsible for the acts of its employees in the course of the employment.”
That means that the wrongful death and personal injury suit is dropped against Farmington police officers Byron L. Ratliff and Larry Lacey, along with Chief Rick Baker. The civil suit against the city will go back to Judge Kenneth Pratt for trial in St. Francois County. Jurors will decide whether or not negligence played a part in the fatal collision.
After Southers and the others filed suit against the city and the three police officers, the City of Farmington asked for a summary judgment, which means the judge decides the case instead of a jury. The city said there was no negligent conduct and that the sovereign immunity, official immunity, and the public duty doctrine protected them from liability.
Pratt granted the city’s motion and found in its favor. Southers and the others appealed to the Supreme Court.
As of press time, Attorney Mark H. Zoole, the city’s attorney, had not returned calls made on Tuesday and this morning.
Farmington City Administrator Greg Beavers said this morning that he would not comment on any legal action.
“We respect the decision of the court,” Beavers said. As for the next step, he added, “We’ll discuss this with our legal counsel and insurance company.”
The case began about 4:30 p.m. May 12, 2004, when a man later identified as 49-year-old Walter L. O'Neal of St. Louis entered the Super 8 Motel in Maple Valley shopping center, displayed a small handgun and demanded money. A motel worker reported the robbery to police and told them he had left through a rear door and had driven off in a gray van.
In less than a minute, Farmington police officer Lindell Barton (not named in the lawsuit) saw the van and called in the license plate number. When O’Neal saw Barton’s patrol car, he sped away south on Maple Valley Drive, which had a speed limit of 35 mph. Barton turned on his lights and siren and headed after O’Neal at a high rate of speed.
Other officers headed toward the area. At the time, the police department's policy for pursuits limited them to no more than one primary vehicle and one backup vehicle, unless specifically instructed otherwise by a field supervisor.
Officers Ratliff and Lacey heard Barton's radio transmission, turned on their vehicles' lights and sirens, and followed Barton in pursuit. According to court documents, Ratliff saw the suspect's vehicle being followed by Barton’s patrol car on Maple Valley Drive. Ratliff saw his field supervisor, Lacey, join the pursuit in front of him. Officer Ratliff continued to follow in pursuit as the third police vehicle following the suspect.
One of the drivers on Maple Valley Drive who pulled over to let police pass was Monica Clark, who was driving a 1997 Oldsmobile Achieva south toward Liberty Street. After the van and the two police officers drove past, Clark pulled back onto Maple Valley Drive and began to turn left onto Hazel Street.
Ratliff’s patrol car hit Clark’s car broadside. According to court documents, Ratliff was driving 67-71 mph at impact. Clark’s car was pushed approximately 42 feet from the point of impact and overturned, ejecting Moutray and 5-year-old Rodney Clark. Moutray was crushed beneath the car and later pronounced dead at the scene. Clark was partially ejected out the rear window of the car. She died a few minutes later. Rodney and 1-year-old Lakoda Clark were air-lifted to Children's Hospital in St. Louis, where they were at first listed in serious condition.
Ratliff had contusions and abrasions from the impact and deployment of air bags in the patrol car.
O'Neal continued south on Maple Valley Drive, crossed Liberty Street and lost control and struck a professional building just off Westmount Drive. He was taken into custody and transported to the police department. He currently is serving two 30-year terms for two charges of second-degree murder for the deaths of Clark and Moutray.
Southers and the others filed suit allegedly that Ratliff was negligent by endangering life when he exceeded the maximum speed limit. The petition claimed Lacey failed to control the pursuit as demanded by department policy and Missouri law. It also alleged that Baker failed to properly train his officers about the department’s pursuit policy and that the city, as the police officers’ employer, was liable for the actions of the three officers under the doctrine of “respondeat superior” (by which a master is liable for the negligence of a servant).
Devoti did not know when the lawsuit would be addressed in court.
Paula Barr is a reporter for the Daily Journal and can be reached at 573-431-2010, ext. 172 or at pbarr@dailyjournalonline.com.
However, the city can be held responsible because it does not enjoy the same protection as the officers, the Court ruled in an unanimous decision in the case of Southers et al versus the City of Farmington et al. Judge Mary Russell wrote the opinion.
“The court said the three individual officers cannot be personally liable,” said Matthew J. Devoti, one of the attorneys for family members Debra Southers, Terry Larson and Kathleen Hammett. “The Court said they are immune from suit while performing the duties of the office. They also said the city can be sued because the facts suggest negligence. The city can be held responsible for the acts of its employees in the course of the employment.”
That means that the wrongful death and personal injury suit is dropped against Farmington police officers Byron L. Ratliff and Larry Lacey, along with Chief Rick Baker. The civil suit against the city will go back to Judge Kenneth Pratt for trial in St. Francois County. Jurors will decide whether or not negligence played a part in the fatal collision.
After Southers and the others filed suit against the city and the three police officers, the City of Farmington asked for a summary judgment, which means the judge decides the case instead of a jury. The city said there was no negligent conduct and that the sovereign immunity, official immunity, and the public duty doctrine protected them from liability.
Pratt granted the city’s motion and found in its favor. Southers and the others appealed to the Supreme Court.
As of press time, Attorney Mark H. Zoole, the city’s attorney, had not returned calls made on Tuesday and this morning.
Farmington City Administrator Greg Beavers said this morning that he would not comment on any legal action.
“We respect the decision of the court,” Beavers said. As for the next step, he added, “We’ll discuss this with our legal counsel and insurance company.”
The case began about 4:30 p.m. May 12, 2004, when a man later identified as 49-year-old Walter L. O'Neal of St. Louis entered the Super 8 Motel in Maple Valley shopping center, displayed a small handgun and demanded money. A motel worker reported the robbery to police and told them he had left through a rear door and had driven off in a gray van.
In less than a minute, Farmington police officer Lindell Barton (not named in the lawsuit) saw the van and called in the license plate number. When O’Neal saw Barton’s patrol car, he sped away south on Maple Valley Drive, which had a speed limit of 35 mph. Barton turned on his lights and siren and headed after O’Neal at a high rate of speed.
Other officers headed toward the area. At the time, the police department's policy for pursuits limited them to no more than one primary vehicle and one backup vehicle, unless specifically instructed otherwise by a field supervisor.
Officers Ratliff and Lacey heard Barton's radio transmission, turned on their vehicles' lights and sirens, and followed Barton in pursuit. According to court documents, Ratliff saw the suspect's vehicle being followed by Barton’s patrol car on Maple Valley Drive. Ratliff saw his field supervisor, Lacey, join the pursuit in front of him. Officer Ratliff continued to follow in pursuit as the third police vehicle following the suspect.
One of the drivers on Maple Valley Drive who pulled over to let police pass was Monica Clark, who was driving a 1997 Oldsmobile Achieva south toward Liberty Street. After the van and the two police officers drove past, Clark pulled back onto Maple Valley Drive and began to turn left onto Hazel Street.
Ratliff’s patrol car hit Clark’s car broadside. According to court documents, Ratliff was driving 67-71 mph at impact. Clark’s car was pushed approximately 42 feet from the point of impact and overturned, ejecting Moutray and 5-year-old Rodney Clark. Moutray was crushed beneath the car and later pronounced dead at the scene. Clark was partially ejected out the rear window of the car. She died a few minutes later. Rodney and 1-year-old Lakoda Clark were air-lifted to Children's Hospital in St. Louis, where they were at first listed in serious condition.
Ratliff had contusions and abrasions from the impact and deployment of air bags in the patrol car.
O'Neal continued south on Maple Valley Drive, crossed Liberty Street and lost control and struck a professional building just off Westmount Drive. He was taken into custody and transported to the police department. He currently is serving two 30-year terms for two charges of second-degree murder for the deaths of Clark and Moutray.
Southers and the others filed suit allegedly that Ratliff was negligent by endangering life when he exceeded the maximum speed limit. The petition claimed Lacey failed to control the pursuit as demanded by department policy and Missouri law. It also alleged that Baker failed to properly train his officers about the department’s pursuit policy and that the city, as the police officers’ employer, was liable for the actions of the three officers under the doctrine of “respondeat superior” (by which a master is liable for the negligence of a servant).
Devoti did not know when the lawsuit would be addressed in court.
Paula Barr is a reporter for the Daily Journal and can be reached at 573-431-2010, ext. 172 or at pbarr@dailyjournalonline.com.
More Headlines: | Rude traveling salespeople evicted from Minn. hotel
Ads by Yahoo!
Obama Gives $31 Billion for Student Aid
Get Your Degree Now. Financial Aid & Scholarships are available.
www.ClassesUSA.com
The comments below are from readers and do not represent the views of the Daily Journal
curious posted on Wednesday, June 18th, 2008 at 9:35 pm
I am just curious about the poll that asks if we think the city should be sued.
How many voting actually live in Farmington?
How many voting actually live in Farmington?
keepin it real posted on Wednesday, June 18th, 2008 at 4:56 pm
I guess I will write another comment, since you wouldn't post my first one. To make it short but simple, people need to stop being so hard on Miss Southers. She lost her mother and her daughter all at once. Can you imagine? And to SMARTYPANTSCHICK: Maybe you should ask the childrens father, why she hasn't BEEN ABLE to contact her grandchildren! Do you really think she doesn't want to? To RESIDENT: If those ladies would have survived, and a police officer had died, Monica would have been held responsible!
keepin it real-toonline coordinator posted on Tuesday, June 17th, 2008 at 5:02 pm
I was actually refering to the comment I wrote yesterday and still have not seen posted.
Online Coordinator posted on Tuesday, June 17th, 2008 at 3:34 pm
To: keepin it real
There are supportive comments posted and none have been deleted. There might be some in pending for second-review, but none have been removed.
You might want to re-read through all the comments again.
There are supportive comments posted and none have been deleted. There might be some in pending for second-review, but none have been removed.
You might want to re-read through all the comments again.
keepin it real posted on Tuesday, June 17th, 2008 at 12:45 pm
Why aren't you posting comments that support the lawsuit? That is predjudice.
Sid posted on Tuesday, June 17th, 2008 at 12:19 pm
Policy is an internal guide as to how to react to situations, not a legal guideline. You can be in violation of policy, and not in violation of the law. When you know the suspect is armed, that requires extra back-up, because the officers are in more danger. The court's job in not to enforce policy, but to enforce the law. The only people here who were in violation of the law were the armed robber, and the lady for failure to yield.
bulletinman posted on Sunday, June 15th, 2008 at 10:26 am
The FPD violated it's own policy they are liable for this accident. There is no justice there is only just-us cops...
Tracy posted on Friday, June 13th, 2008 at 7:52 am
I have a question isn't it true that if their is high traffic that an officer is to not pursue a fleeing suspect? As someone stated a couple of times in their comment they are to follow at a safe distance so that they can make other officers aware from the radio, also that will sometimes make the suspect slow down if he believes he isnt being pursued. I think farmington needs to be sued, we had an incident with a farmington officer a couple months back we called in a drunk driver, and they pulled him over and then let the guy go he could barely walk and the cops got ignorant with me and my daughter, told us not to worry about it. We support MADD due to my neice being killed by one and it really shocks me how things our now in our society, and I truely hope that these family's find some piece in their hearts and wish them all well..
Triple D posted on Friday, June 13th, 2008 at 7:34 am
To: anamolous propagation, did you see a chase this morning in your big city ended when the perp hit an SUV. Yeah their policies are working well aren't they???
Tired of people posted on Friday, June 13th, 2008 at 3:16 am
Officers ARE trained in high speed driving for all you know it alls. To anamolous propagation - did you look up some fancy words in the dictionary and use them? Give it up. You and people like you are ridiculous with you way of thinking.
Exactly posted on Friday, June 13th, 2008 at 12:00 am
They need to slow the volunteer fire departments down as well. They drive way to fast and some of 'em throughout the county are high school kids. 3 cars in a 2 car protocol means the city is liable because the superior either failed to call the third car off, or made a bad judgement in allowing it to stay in pursuit.
Triple D posted on Thursday, June 12th, 2008 at 3:33 pm
To: anamolous propagation. I'm not opposed to guns, in fact I own many, but I don't think putting a gun into the hand of a desk clerk is the answer, first off, not everyone is comfortable handling firearms. What is the clerk missed the robber and killed a cutomer? How does that measure on your scale of "if one life is worth endangering for the sake of another"?
I think the police were trying to catch this guy before he hurt someone, and there was an terrible accident.
This should I hope help drive us to some better training, but the money won't bring anybody back.
And why must you talk down to us, calling us Mayberry, like you're all high and mighty because you're from St. Louis, you can't even spell your handle??? If St. Louis is so great, why are you so bored you must blog about things happening in Mayberry?
I think the police were trying to catch this guy before he hurt someone, and there was an terrible accident.
This should I hope help drive us to some better training, but the money won't bring anybody back.
And why must you talk down to us, calling us Mayberry, like you're all high and mighty because you're from St. Louis, you can't even spell your handle??? If St. Louis is so great, why are you so bored you must blog about things happening in Mayberry?
PoPo man posted on Thursday, June 12th, 2008 at 3:04 pm
For years now I have told fellow officers to slow down. There is no reason to drive 90 to a call. Our cities are small enough that driving at high speeds with all the lights and siren on only takes off seconds from the response time. You can't help anyone if you don't get there in one piece. Maybe the city should be sued to get chiefs to mandate slower and safer responses.
anamolous propagation posted on Thursday, June 12th, 2008 at 1:04 pm
Seems to be overwhelming concensus that the citizens of Mayberry do not want high speed pursuits. As for St. Louis they have an established procedure for pursuits. Remember the Illinois trooper who is now being held liable for the "accident" on 255? Policies should reflect a proactive measure not a reactionary response. As for responding to a Robbery in progress-the robbers were "fleeing". Use the radios, follow procedure and if one life is worth endangering for the sake of another-I'll never understand the net gain! Lastly, if that employee, as all employees and citizens should- be armed and stop the crime in progress. This is not vigilantism-this is life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. No jury would convict the employee as they were at that time and only then in imminent threat or in real danger. Not trained for high speed pursuits, try arming a cop with a sniper rifle without proper training-get the point this whole thing is a mess and someone will have to pay the piper. By the way-I am armed and considered dangerous-ask the last bum who tried to break into my car! NRA!
a concern citizen posted on Thursday, June 12th, 2008 at 9:39 am
I live on Potosi st and have observed police cars traveling at high rates of speed. High speed that has no business on city streets. Well over 70mph,I feel there needs to be a policy in place to control such responses. What's sad is most of the time the officer is responding to a wreck at Wal Mart. This is a risky action taken by the police and if something should happen during the response/call such as a accident I feel the city should be held responsible for that action. What good does a high rate speed do if police don't get their none most of the time the extra 30-45 seconds saved by traveling at a high speed don't matter anyway.
superbiff posted on Thursday, June 12th, 2008 at 7:44 am
What are they going to do - sue the convict? In our society, you sue the one with the most money.
Triple D posted on Thursday, June 12th, 2008 at 7:31 am
Agreed they are all good men serving the public well, and certainly none of them should be sued.
Mary posted on Thursday, June 12th, 2008 at 7:14 am
No one has mentioned the fact that in Missouri officers are not trained in high speed pursuits..
No High Speed pursuit posted on Thursday, June 12th, 2008 at 12:21 am
This is what happens when you try high speed pursuits in a residential area instead of using the radio, which a perp will never out run. Many local police officers lack the training to accurately navigate civilians in a high speed chase. They're not the Highway Patrol, many are barely adults who graduated from some local academy like MAC. So yeah, when your badge fills your head with confidence you shouldn't have, and skills you obviously don't, then your employer could be liable when an accident occurs. I feel sorry for all parties involved. They have to live with this incident for the rest of their lives and no amount of money or counseling will appease that pain. In the end, Farmington will settle through their insurance and hopefully take steps to keep this from occurring again. Like radioing ahead and using spike strips in a safe area.
FUNNY posted on Thursday, June 12th, 2008 at 12:07 am
Kinda funny how the robber was convicted and pronounced guilty of the two victims deaths but where is the suit against him??? Oh yeah he doesnt have any money cuz hes in prison...gee maybe its just money they want??
Safety First posted on Wednesday, June 11th, 2008 at 11:53 pm
Like any small town, Farmington does not recruit the top police officers. We get the best we can afford. This does not mean they are bad people. They just do not have the extensive training(including driving skills)of larger departments like STL County. This is a sad situation and Farmington will pay millions. I agree, it should go only to the children.
Tired of people posted on Wednesday, June 11th, 2008 at 10:06 pm
Hey stupid people that say they should sue the city - would you feel any different if you were the hotel clerk that was just held up with a weapon? FAILURE TO YIELD TO EMERGENCY VEHICLE. You don't support the police you have probably been arrested by them. Let them sue the criminal. You all would ge griping if they had let the suspect go and he had crashed into someone, you would also blame the police. Go hug a tree.
Scott posted on Wednesday, June 11th, 2008 at 5:10 pm
Well, all I can speak from is personal knowledge of the officers involved. All three named are quality guys. Lacey was my neighbor for years as was Ratliff. His wife attended to mine when my son was born 14 years ago. Baker was a family friend too. All of them quality guys and it appears they were just doing their jobs. I can't believe this lady would not have heard Byron's sirens and seen his lights before she turned back onto Maple Valley Drive. It's horrible what happened but I can't believe the city would be held liable for this.
All good men. I'll be praying for them as well as the family suing.
All good men. I'll be praying for them as well as the family suing.
posted on Wednesday, June 11th, 2008 at 4:52 pm
straight from the article in the paper.
O'Neal continued south on Maple Valley Drive, crossed Liberty Street and lost control and struck a professional building just off Westmount Drive. He was taken into custody and transported to the police department. He currently is serving two 30-year terms for two charges of second-degree murder for the deaths of Clark and Moutray.
Very Clear that Oneal was reponsible not the city or the officers.
O'Neal continued south on Maple Valley Drive, crossed Liberty Street and lost control and struck a professional building just off Westmount Drive. He was taken into custody and transported to the police department. He currently is serving two 30-year terms for two charges of second-degree murder for the deaths of Clark and Moutray.
Very Clear that Oneal was reponsible not the city or the officers.
Ecc posted on Wednesday, June 11th, 2008 at 3:42 pm
"No one knows when his time will come. Like fish that are caught in a cruel net or birds caught in a snare, humans are trapped by a disaster when it suddenly strikes them."
disappointed in people posted on Wednesday, June 11th, 2008 at 2:45 pm
This was an accident. The police did exactly what they had to do to protect the innocent. This was an ARMED ROBBER! That doesn't mean that he stole candy from the grocery store people! The police were doing a very difficult, put their own lives in danger job, when this ACCIDENT happened. I know the people involved and they are recovering from a horrible accident that left them without their mother. I could understand suing the robber who perpetrated the crime but the police officer was also an innocent person involved in an ACCIDENT that would never have happened if this man obeyed the law.
Triple D posted on Wednesday, June 11th, 2008 at 2:24 pm
moflash: If you're refering to my comment, I never said it was okay for the guy to use a gun to rob anybody. And while I hate that the lady turned in front of the police car I can certainly see how it could have happened...you hear sirens, two police cars go by, there is a third comming but you can still hear the first two and don't realize there is a third, you check your mirror and all is clear, then a car traveling roughly 70mile/hr would seem to appear out of nowhere. I'm not blaming anybody, but this is how accidents happen. I think the police were right in chasing the guy. My only point earlier was that if there was a policy in place that said only two cars could be in pursuit and Lacey joined the chase without calling off the third car or authorizing it to stay in the chase, this may get expensive for the city.
Frank... posted on Wednesday, June 11th, 2008 at 2:01 pm
The Officers WERE acting in the interest of public safety. The suspect was an ARMED and dangerous criminal who absolutely HAD to be stopped. This accident was an extreme and unusual tragedy which none of the Officers could have foreseen.
The minute someone like that runs from the Police, the Police are put between a rock and a hard place, they are danged if they do danged if they don't.
The minute someone like that runs from the Police, the Police are put between a rock and a hard place, they are danged if they do danged if they don't.
moflash posted on Wednesday, June 11th, 2008 at 1:02 pm
I can't believe you people actually believe the officers or the city should pay. That same idiot is in your home with the pistol threatening to kill you and you don't want the police to respond quickly? Perhaps the injuries wouldn't have been as bad if the seatbelts which is a LAW were worn and the child had been in the proper seating. Lots of wrongs but sueing isn't the answer.
to_hi-speed posted on Wednesday, June 11th, 2008 at 12:55 pm
Hi-Speed - evidentally you have no idea what kind of calls require officers to run like NASCAR drivers. When you have a situation that requires immediate action, would you like the officers to take their time? I dont think so, evidentally you have never been the victim of a crime. Wake up, they go on more serious calls than you realize, just because certain incidents dont make the paper doesnt mean there are not bad things happening in the city or county!
moflash posted on Wednesday, June 11th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
So its ok to use a gun in a robbery and flee the scene and its ok to turn in front of a police car with its siren and lights. But its the officers fault and the city gets sued? The lawyers should be the one's being put in jail!
Resident posted on Wednesday, June 11th, 2008 at 12:53 pm
Been driving for about 30 years now. Always have been told to check the rear view mirror before pulling out into traffic. Not wearing seat belts...doesn't that make them responsible for this? If one of the police had died, would they have been able to sue the driver for not yielding? Probably not. Truly, this is a sad and unfortunate accident. And blaming the City of Farmington is wrong. How about you sue the parents of the robber for not doing a better job raising their child?
Sid posted on Wednesday, June 11th, 2008 at 12:40 pm
Do you people really think it would be realistic for a police officer to spot an armed robber fleeing from the scene of a crime and say, "well darn, there he goes?" Maybe the dead ladies estate should be sued for the cost of replacing the police car, pain and suffering for the officer, and a citation for failure to yield.
Officer supporter posted on Wednesday, June 11th, 2008 at 12:40 pm
I think that it is very sad that 2 people lost their lives. But definately the city should support the decisions of the officers because they did do their job and no one is perfect. I see people driving all the time that do not yield to emergency vehicles, police officers, and fire trucks. It is sad to see how society is turning out these days. I think that charging the robber was the right idea. Dont go after our officers because they will be hesitant to help our community in the future and I dont blame them. This where life insurance and accidental death insurance comes in handy because accidents happen all the time. My heart does go out to the children but giving them a bunch of money is not going to do anything. I do believe that the city should make sure they have a home to sleep and food to eat, and counseling if needed but making them rich isnt going to help them be anything more than spoiled brats.
LJ posted on Wednesday, June 11th, 2008 at 12:35 pm
I am totally confused by the many different names in this story, who are these "family members" that are wanting to sue? People are coming out of the woodwork.........
Triple D posted on Wednesday, June 11th, 2008 at 11:48 am
I must now say, I was unaware of the restriction to two police cars. This doesn't make the cause less just, but the officers should have followed policy. It will be interesting to see how this turns out.
Just Ducky posted on Wednesday, June 11th, 2008 at 11:34 am
Why in the world should the city be liable for a ACCIDENT?
If the ladies had been paying attention and had been wearing their seat belts this wouldn't have happened.
While the lost lives are a tragedy it in no way should be the city's responsibility to take care of the children left behind because of the ACCIDENT.
I support our officers they put their lives on the line for our safety every time they put on that uniform.
Thank you officers keep up the good work.
If the ladies had been paying attention and had been wearing their seat belts this wouldn't have happened.
While the lost lives are a tragedy it in no way should be the city's responsibility to take care of the children left behind because of the ACCIDENT.
I support our officers they put their lives on the line for our safety every time they put on that uniform.
Thank you officers keep up the good work.
Chris W posted on Wednesday, June 11th, 2008 at 11:05 am
is catching a robber worth two peoples lives is the real question . police often blur the line between catching the bad guy and public safety . in this case two people died theres no reason for it. children lost their parents for what, so someone could go to jail. high speed pursuit are not worth it. theres no arguement that can say these people died for a valid reason. thats why it is a wrongful dead
Triple D posted on Wednesday, June 11th, 2008 at 10:42 am
There was just cause, the were chasing an armed robber.
SMARTYPANTSCHICK posted on Wednesday, June 11th, 2008 at 10:34 am
This is really such a sad situation. I am close to the father (husband to Monica) and their children. It saddens me that they had their mother/wife was taken from them so young and it is a tragedy and terrible ACCIDENT. If any money is awarded I believe it should go into a trust for the children, not the family members suing the city (they have not seen or contacted the Clark children in years)
Please keep in mind that this was an ACCIDENT and the officer involved also has to live with this accident and the pain it has caused the rest of his life as well, I know for a fact he took this very hard on himself.
Many have suffered and those lost are missed forever. The children are the most important. I am sure many lessons have been learned through this tragedy.
Please keep in mind that this was an ACCIDENT and the officer involved also has to live with this accident and the pain it has caused the rest of his life as well, I know for a fact he took this very hard on himself.
Many have suffered and those lost are missed forever. The children are the most important. I am sure many lessons have been learned through this tragedy.
E. Quality posted on Wednesday, June 11th, 2008 at 9:04 am
If the officers hadn't pursued and the suspect had crashed and killed innocent people, the police would have probably been sued for failing to respond quick enough. A no win situation. If the ruling is found in favor of the families they may as well take the lights and sirens out of police vehicles. Then they'll get sued for not responding gas station robberies, but they're probably fake anyhow.
Hi-Speed posted on Wednesday, June 11th, 2008 at 8:51 am
I frequently see the Farmington PD and the SFCSD driving like NASCAR drivers on Karch Blvd. Much is for show to apparently boost their ego's. High-speed chases are not necesary on our city streets. Being a cop does not put you above the law. Ask Leadington Police Chief Cledith Wakefied. The court got this one right and the family should be able to sue.
mad momma posted on Wednesday, June 11th, 2008 at 8:37 am
lights? sirens? When the carS past ME, there were NO LIGHTS, NOR SIRENS... I do not buy that they failed to yeild to cars with light and sirens.
REanamolous propagation posted on Wednesday, June 11th, 2008 at 8:30 am
Thought like that is why the insurance rates are so high for everyone else. It's nothing but a money grab. If you dont like "Mayberry" there are plenty of places you can live that may be more to your liking, St. Louis is close.
flutterby posted on Wednesday, June 11th, 2008 at 6:47 am
A huge trustfund should be set up with the money from the trial (if won). Those children have been through so much! Not too long after the death of their mother and grandmother, their dad was in a serious car accident. Please pray for the kids!
Police Officer Supporter posted on Wednesday, June 11th, 2008 at 12:21 am
LOVE IT! The robber is definately the one who should be paying the price. After all, lets not forget...if he hadn't committed the crime, this would not have happened at all!
Police Officer Supporter posted on Wednesday, June 11th, 2008 at 12:17 am
We all just need to remember that the police officers were doing there job to protect us. That is what they are there for and that is what they were doing. It is unfortunate as to what happened but it is just as much the woman who was driving the cars fault as it was the police officers. She pulled over like she was suppose to but failed to look before pulling out. Accidents happen every day due to someone not paying attention. The deaths should teach us all a lesson and make us remember that we should slow down and pay more attention when driving and maybe then the number of accidents would decrease. We should be supporting our local law enforcement and be appreciative of everything they do to protect us. T
posted on Tuesday, June 10th, 2008 at 11:53 pm
the family should sue the man who robbed the hotel not the police or the city. oh I forgot he had no money and had to steal, so go after the money!!
Sid posted on Tuesday, June 10th, 2008 at 11:45 pm
They should be suing the idiot that decided to run from the cops. That is where the real blame lies. If we tell cops they can't chase the bad guys, then the bad guys are gonna run every time. Also the driver failed to yield for a police car with lights and sirens. Paying a little attention would have saved her and her friends lives.
posted on Tuesday, June 10th, 2008 at 11:35 pm
so the police should let people be robbed, assaulted, even killed and just let the suspect go on his or her way. Think about it, if this happened to you, you would probably complain that the police did not respond fast enough!!!!
anamolous propagation posted on Tuesday, June 10th, 2008 at 9:25 pm
Tell me why in the world it takes a court to rule that the city/jurisdiction is resposponible for the actions of its employees! Sue 'em, they will pay, they have insurance and Mayberry will fall inline with the rest of the USA. No more high speed pursuits w/o just cause! Another lesson for the small time wanna bees! Not sour, just glad to see culpability!
Local News
- The world is her home
- Christmas comes in with a growl
- Firefighter hopes good Samaritan will find his wallet
- Deason family raises money to honor soldiers killed in Iraq
- Never too young to pick a career
Most Commented - Last 7 Days
- Hundreds line up for energy aid (42)
- Judge sentences Osburn to five years (22)
- Schools take steps to fight drugs after possible overdose deaths (15)
- Bell-ringing season begins soon (10)
- Two die in early morning accident (8)
Most Viewed - Last 7 Days
More: Most Viewed
Most Emailed - Last 7 Days
advertisement


I really side with the city here. I think we have to do what we can to capture these folks before they hurt someone, but not following policy will likey be a costly mistake.