I am so confused by this. I understand that the police officer himself would not be liable… but does the city not have to carry insurance for this type of thing. Do cops drive under their own insurance when on duty?
My guess, and this is only a guess as I’m not taking the time to read the article, but usually when you’re sueing you sue all people and parties involved and let the courts sort it out. So I’m guessing the owner of the building brought on a law suit, either on their own or insurance, and included the officer in addition to the precinct. And probably the judge just dismissed it against the officer as an individual because of the qualified immunity. Sueing all parties involved is a common practice in this type of suit. Again, I’m guessing and kind of inferring based on the head lines. But you have to admit that headline grabs more attention vs something like law suit dismissed on officer, but can continue against precinct and the insurance company insuring the police.
Edit: I was going to read the article and see what the content of it was, but I’m blocked from reading it as I’m in Europe at this time.
CLEVELAND (WJW) – Jatin Popat says he was first alerted by his alarm company that his business was broken into early Thursday morning.
He then drove to the store, Star Value, on West 105th Street in Cleveland.
“I saw the police cruiser in the parking lot and thought, wow, they got here fast,” Popat said. He soon realized the store was not burglarized, but that the Linndale police cruiser slammed into the store.
Security video obtained by Nexstar’s WJW shows the crash. The video first shows a vehicle drive by the store, followed by a cruiser with the lights and sirens on. The cruiser appears to go over a curb and then slam into the store.
Linndale Police Chief Tim Franczak says the officer driving the cruiser is OK. He said the officer was trying to get a license plate of a vehicle that they thought may be stolen when the crash took place.
Popat said the chief came to the store and provided insurance information.
“I thought I would be covered but now I don’t know,” Popat said. “My lawyer got a letter that the insurance company is saying they are not going to pay, so I am not sure.”
He said the crash caused about $40,000 worth of damages to his store.
He added that an employee with his insurance company is saying the village is responsible for the damages, but insurance officials for the village are telling him the department has immunity.
Attorney Tom Merriman says, for the most part, the law protects state and local officials from liability when a member of the police department is operating a motor vehicle while responding to an emergency call.
“The store owner didn’t do anything wrong but the law is set up to protect police and fire departments so they can do their job,” Merriman said.
Merriman added that some cities and villages have a special fund to help cover these type of expenses.
The Linndale chief says he is not sure what village officials can do financially for the store owner since the matter was turned over to the insurance company. The chief, however, did say he will look into the matter.
“I do feel bad for the owner,” the chief said. “I have very little to say on this, but I am going to try.”
The store owner says he just wants to get his building fixed.
“I just want to get back to what it was,” Popat said. “I just want my shutters back up and the door fixed, that’s about it.”
Thanks for posting the article. After reading it sounds like standard insurance not wanting to pay and the police station trying to get out of paying too. It’ll go to court and it’ll get settled out. Now what I find interesting in the reading between the lines thing is, I’m not sure there was even an emergency actually occurring or if what the police officer is saying is true that he was trying to get a license plate number. What the shop owner now needs to do is just file a claim with his insurance company get his s*** fixed and then let his insurance company deal with the aftermath of recovering the costs. Again just really standard for America.
It might be easier to think that in many ways governments are sort of like companies. Think of an airline where a flight is cancelled to the next day. First they say there’s nothing you can do too bad, then they’ll say you have to send an official note a special way to get it looked at, then they automatically reject you anyway, then you need to fight for it further and they might give a food voucher, etc etc.
Their goal is that whatever happens, try to minimise the cost for the the company (or in this case the government). Instead of it being about providing justice and making you whole. The added difference in this case is the police also has qualified immunity for extra safety from anything. And of course any insurance company would also do the same.
I am so confused by this. I understand that the police officer himself would not be liable… but does the city not have to carry insurance for this type of thing. Do cops drive under their own insurance when on duty?
My guess, and this is only a guess as I’m not taking the time to read the article, but usually when you’re sueing you sue all people and parties involved and let the courts sort it out. So I’m guessing the owner of the building brought on a law suit, either on their own or insurance, and included the officer in addition to the precinct. And probably the judge just dismissed it against the officer as an individual because of the qualified immunity. Sueing all parties involved is a common practice in this type of suit. Again, I’m guessing and kind of inferring based on the head lines. But you have to admit that headline grabs more attention vs something like law suit dismissed on officer, but can continue against precinct and the insurance company insuring the police.
Edit: I was going to read the article and see what the content of it was, but I’m blocked from reading it as I’m in Europe at this time.
CLEVELAND (WJW) – Jatin Popat says he was first alerted by his alarm company that his business was broken into early Thursday morning.
He then drove to the store, Star Value, on West 105th Street in Cleveland.
“I saw the police cruiser in the parking lot and thought, wow, they got here fast,” Popat said. He soon realized the store was not burglarized, but that the Linndale police cruiser slammed into the store.
Security video obtained by Nexstar’s WJW shows the crash. The video first shows a vehicle drive by the store, followed by a cruiser with the lights and sirens on. The cruiser appears to go over a curb and then slam into the store.
Linndale Police Chief Tim Franczak says the officer driving the cruiser is OK. He said the officer was trying to get a license plate of a vehicle that they thought may be stolen when the crash took place.
Popat said the chief came to the store and provided insurance information.
“I thought I would be covered but now I don’t know,” Popat said. “My lawyer got a letter that the insurance company is saying they are not going to pay, so I am not sure.”
He said the crash caused about $40,000 worth of damages to his store.
He added that an employee with his insurance company is saying the village is responsible for the damages, but insurance officials for the village are telling him the department has immunity.
Attorney Tom Merriman says, for the most part, the law protects state and local officials from liability when a member of the police department is operating a motor vehicle while responding to an emergency call.
“The store owner didn’t do anything wrong but the law is set up to protect police and fire departments so they can do their job,” Merriman said.
Merriman added that some cities and villages have a special fund to help cover these type of expenses.
The Linndale chief says he is not sure what village officials can do financially for the store owner since the matter was turned over to the insurance company. The chief, however, did say he will look into the matter.
“I do feel bad for the owner,” the chief said. “I have very little to say on this, but I am going to try.”
The store owner says he just wants to get his building fixed.
“I just want to get back to what it was,” Popat said. “I just want my shutters back up and the door fixed, that’s about it.”
Thanks for posting the article. After reading it sounds like standard insurance not wanting to pay and the police station trying to get out of paying too. It’ll go to court and it’ll get settled out. Now what I find interesting in the reading between the lines thing is, I’m not sure there was even an emergency actually occurring or if what the police officer is saying is true that he was trying to get a license plate number. What the shop owner now needs to do is just file a claim with his insurance company get his s*** fixed and then let his insurance company deal with the aftermath of recovering the costs. Again just really standard for America.
It might be easier to think that in many ways governments are sort of like companies. Think of an airline where a flight is cancelled to the next day. First they say there’s nothing you can do too bad, then they’ll say you have to send an official note a special way to get it looked at, then they automatically reject you anyway, then you need to fight for it further and they might give a food voucher, etc etc.
Their goal is that whatever happens, try to minimise the cost for the the company (or in this case the government). Instead of it being about providing justice and making you whole. The added difference in this case is the police also has qualified immunity for extra safety from anything. And of course any insurance company would also do the same.