White v. Normand

Citations: 222 So. 3d 205; 16 La.App. 5 Cir. 738; 2017 La. App. LEXIS 1013; 2017 WL 2350379Docket: NO. 16-CA-738

Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal; May 31, 2017; Louisiana; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Kim White appeals the trial court's judgment that found no liability for her injuries and dismissed her case with prejudice. The court's decision was affirmed. At trial, White recounted an incident from January 12, 2011, when she was approached by a man seeking help to buy heroin. After getting into his car, they fled from police, which culminated in a high-speed chase. When the car stopped, White exited with her hands raised, but was struck by a police vehicle operated by Deputy Paul Gegenheimer, who was pursuing the stolen vehicle and had activated his lights and sirens. White sustained injuries and incurred medical expenses, later being charged with resisting arrest and possession of drug paraphernalia. During cross-examination, inconsistencies arose regarding her testimony about her hands being raised at the time of the accident. Medical records indicated marijuana use on the day of the incident, although White claimed it did not affect her memory. Deputy Gegenheimer stated he did not intend to hit White and was adhering to traffic laws at the time of the incident. After the collision, he placed White in handcuffs and called EMS, discovering drug paraphernalia in the stolen vehicle. White also had multiple outstanding warrants at the time of her arrest.

Deputy Petit, Jr. corroborated Deputy Gegenheimer's account of the pursuit of a stolen vehicle, noting that the vehicle came to a sudden stop. He did not witness the police vehicle collide with White. Deputy Mike Tisdale, who arrived two minutes post-crash, found White on the ground in pain and unable to communicate. He gathered information from Deputy Gegenheimer, who stated White exited her vehicle and attempted to flee just before the crash. Tisdale observed minor damage to both vehicles and found no driving violations by Deputy Gegenheimer.

Major Kerry Najolia, an expert on police operations and emergency response, testified that both deputies adhered to JPSO policies during the pursuit, granting them immunity from liability under La. R.S. 32:24. He confirmed Deputy Gegenheimer's actions were consistent with training and concluded he did not have time to stop due to the sudden halt of the stolen vehicle. Najolia disputed former police officer Gary Dresselhaus's assertion that La. R.S. 32:24 did not apply at the moment of impact, stating no Louisiana police department supported such a view.

The trial court ruled in favor of the defendant, dismissing White's claims with prejudice. On appeal, White argues the court erred in applying La. R.S. 32:24, which shifted the burden to prove gross negligence rather than ordinary negligence, and contends that Deputy Gegenheimer's actions amounted to gross negligence. La. R.S. 32:24 allows emergency vehicle operators to exercise certain privileges while responding to emergencies, provided they meet specified conditions.

Authorized emergency vehicle operators are permitted to park or stand without regard to existing regulations, proceed past traffic signals after ensuring safe operation, exceed speed limits without endangering life or property, and disregard specific movement regulations, provided they use audible or visual signals to alert other motorists. However, these exceptions do not absolve them from the responsibility to drive safely or shield them from consequences arising from reckless behavior.

In the case at hand, the trial court determined that the provisions of La. R.S. 32:24 were applicable during a police chase, as deputies were lawfully pursuing a suspect using emergency lights and sirens. The court concluded that the plaintiff, White, failed to prove that Deputy Gegenheimer acted with reckless disregard for her safety. The court found her testimony unconvincing, particularly regarding her actions and intentions during the incident, noting contradictions in her claims of surrender and her admission of resisting arrest. 

Deputy Gegenheimer described attempting to avoid a collision with White and the suspect vehicle after both exited their vehicle unexpectedly. The court reasoned that if White had genuinely intended to surrender, she would not have placed herself in danger by running between the vehicles. The judgment emphasized that her own negligence contributed to her injuries. Under the manifest error standard, an appellate court can only overturn a trial court's factual findings if they are shown to be clearly wrong or lacking a reasonable basis.

The reviewing court's role is to determine whether a factfinder's conclusion was reasonable rather than to assess the correctness of the decision. Significant deference is given to findings based on witness credibility, and a determination favoring one witness over another is rarely deemed manifestly erroneous. This principle extends to expert testimony and conflicts therein. In this context, White contends that the trial court improperly applied the 'reckless disregard' standard from La. R.S. 32:24 instead of a typical negligence standard. The Louisiana Third Circuit Court of Appeal addressed a similar issue in Puearry v. State, where a trooper responded to an emergency call and, despite slowing down after being informed it was not an emergency, struck a plaintiff who unexpectedly darted into the road. The court affirmed the trial court's ruling of no negligence, applying both the 'reckless disregard' and ordinary negligence standards, ultimately finding the trooper acted appropriately under the circumstances. Established jurisprudence holds that drivers of emergency vehicles are only liable for negligence amounting to reckless disregard and that they can assume a pedestrian will stay in a safe position unless proven otherwise. The plaintiff's actions, including running into traffic despite seeing the approaching ambulance, were pivotal in the court's determination that the trooper had exercised due care.

Motorists are not liable for pedestrian safety unless the motorist is negligent. In this case, the trial court found no negligence by Trooper McKenzie, as he took appropriate actions to avoid hitting the plaintiff, who was under the influence of drugs and a passenger in a stolen vehicle being chased by police. The chase was classified as an emergency, and deputies involved were granted immunity under La. R.S. 32:24. Prior to the stolen car stopping, the plaintiff, White, ran into the path of Deputy Gegenheimer's vehicle while attempting to surrender. Conflict arose in testimonies regarding her intent, but the court found no evidence suggesting Deputy Gegenheimer could anticipate her actions. Expert testimony supported that Deputy Gegenheimer acted according to training during the chase. The trial court preferred this expert testimony over White's evidence attempting to establish negligence. Ultimately, the court determined that Deputy Gegenheimer's actions did not constitute gross negligence or reckless disregard for safety, thus maintaining his immunity. The court affirmed the dismissal of White’s claims, concluding that her decision to exit the vehicle and run into the path of the police car was the cause of the accident. The trial court's suggestion of possible negligence regarding the distance estimation was deemed without merit, affirming that Deputy Gegenheimer was not negligent while performing his duties.