I got a brief mention in an article by Sophia Voravong in the Lafayette Journal & Courier regarding the dismissal of a lawsuit against local police by a woman who was injured in the course of the police response to her 911 call reporting the shooting of her son by her ex-boyfriend.
I represented the Tippecanoe County Sheriff’s Department on this one. The case ended with the Plaintiff’s voluntary dismissal of the state law claims late last week. My inclination is to just be happy with adding a significant case to the victory column. And, I am pleased. But, I think it’s critical to remind myself that this isn’t a game. I don’t think any litigator can entirely get past the competitive nature of the litigation process. But underlying the process are real people with real problems.
In this case, there is a woman with significant injuries and medical expenses, there are police officers who feel they did the right thing and got sued for their efforts, and there are government officials trying to keep their citizens safe and protect taxpayer dollars.
The short version is that the woman’s ex-boyfriend broke into her house, murdered her son, knocked her unconscious, stuffed her into the passenger’s side of her car and attempted to flee. As he attempted to flee, the police opened fire to stop him. Shortly after the gunfire, the ex-boyfriend hit a parked police cruiser and flipped the car. The woman suffered significant injuries as a result of these events.
If you want the gory details of the case, the federal court’s order finding that there were no federal Constitutional violations of the woman’s rights by the officers is here and it lays out a more detailed factual background. The federal judge remanded the case to state court for consideration of her state law claims. Due to the interaction between federal constitutional law and Indiana’s law enforcement immunity provisions, her legal case would have been a tough one to make in light of the federal court’s decision.
It’s too bad the murderer, as is often the case with such people, had no money. He was convicted of murder and will, therefore, never have any money. His ability to cause harm far exceeded his ability to pay for that harm. With the true wrongdoer unable to pay, someone was going to have to sustain a loss that was largely or entirely of the ex-boyfriend’s making. So, while I’m pleased that I was able to help prevent my clients from having to bear the loss, that happiness has to be tempered with the understanding that the woman has to bear the loss.
You have just reminded me why I didn’t choose law. I love debate, I love logic, I love helping people.
I would hate this.
Congrats & I’m sorry. :/
This is another downside of not have some sort of national health system: the reason that the particular woman in question needs so much money is undoubtedly because she will have expensive and ongoing health care expenses for which she may not have insurance.
FWIW, this is also true WRT medical malpractice awards. I’ve seen no credible evidence that frivolous lawsuits are responsible in any way for the costs of med mal insurance. What’s responsible for the high cost of med mal insurance is the high cost of health care, since in egregious cases the negligent doctor will be on the hook for a lifetime of expensive medical care for the victim.
A national system of health insurance won’t make these costs go away, of course, but it will spread the costs over a much wider pool of people.