Today, in Putnam County Sheriff v. Price, the Supreme Court overturned a Court of Appeals decision I complained about last year.
My description at that time:
The most recent installment involves a cold November morning at 5:30 a.m. where a Sheriff’s Deputy responded to an accident involving an icy roadway. Turns out the local water authority had a pipe leaking across the road. He called in the situation, and the local water authority that owned the pipe, among others, were notified. But, he didn’t hang around the site until the problem was fixed or stick around to wave off other motorists. Then, at 7:15 a.m., another motorist had an accident at the icy spot. The Indiana Court of Appeals held that the Sheriff could be liable for the second person’s injuries because, it concluded, “the Sheriff has a duty to warn the public of a known hazardous condition.” The court further opined that this duty was not closely enough related to things like preventing crime and providing emergency services to afford the Sheriff the immunity available for those activities.
The Supreme Court notes the general rule that a court is supposed to address immunity before looking at the question of negligence. “Immunity assumes negligence but denies liability.” But, frustratingly, it proceeds to ignore that general rule without really explaining why. But, in any case, without addressing whether the Sheriff was immune from suit, it decided that the Sheriff owed no duty of care to the Plaintiff under these circumstances.
The court reasoned that the Sheriff did not own or maintain the county road where the accident happened; the county highway supervisor is charged with maintaining the roads.
In my mind, this raises some interesting questions about the extent to which county government is regarded by the Supreme Court as a single unit. The Sheriff is a distinct, Constitutional officer, but the deputy who worked for him was, I presume, a county employee; as was the county highway supervisor. The highway department and the county board of commissioners are already defendants but not, apparently, parties to this particular appeal. I’m not sure this decision does anything in particular to shield the county from liability for the actions (or inactions) of the deputy Sheriff. A decision on law enforcement immunity may have.
Leave a Reply